Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
which became effective on August 3, 1988, the vicarious civil liability of the
parents pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code was only alternative and
not simultaneous. This was exemplified by the Supreme Court in the case of
Romano v. Pariñas1.
ROMANO v. PARIÑAS
G.R. No. L-10129 APRIL 22, 1957
FACTS: Spouses Romano filed an action for damages in the amount of P10,
000 against Spouses Pariñas, the latter being the parents of Antonio who is
a minor. It was alleged that Spouses Pariñas allowed Antonio to drive a
motor vehicle having a passenger one Editha Romano, and because of his
lack of foresight and experience, the vehicle overturned resulting in the
death of Editha.
Defendants, in their answer, set up the defense that they never permitted
their son to drive any motor vehicle, if on the occasion alleged in the
complaint he drove a jeep, it was upon the persistent plea of Editha
Romano. They alleged that the accident, if it happened, was due to her fault
and negligence.
After filing their answer, defendant also filed a motion asking that Caridad
Donato, wife of defendant Crisostomo Pariñas, be dropped from the
complaint on the ground of misjoinder of parties-defendants, contending
that under Article 2180 of the new Civil Code, the father is primarily
responsible for the damages caused by the minor children, except only in
case of his death or incapacity when the mother also becomes answerable.
ISSUE: Whether or not dropping Caridad, mother of Antonio, from the case
pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code was proper.
The legal provisions on which the action of plaintiffs is predicated are Articles
2176 and 2180 of the new Civil Code. xxx
It appears clear from the above that whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done, and this obligation is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those persons for whom one is responsible.
And one of the acts mentioned therein is "The father and, in case of his
death or incapacity, the mother", answers for the damages caused by their
minor children who live in their company.
It is therefore clear that the responsibility of the father and mother is not
simultaneous, but alternate, the father being primarily responsible, and the
mother answering only "In case of his death or incapacity."
Since in the instant case the Father is both living and capable, as can be
gleaned from the allegations of the complaint, it follows that it is improper to
join the mother as party-defendant.
1
Pascual Romano and Juana Lleanza De Romano v. Crisostomo Pariñas And Caridad Donato De
Pariñas, G.R. No. L-10129, April 22, 1957
It is true that there is sufficient averment in the complaint that both the
father and the mother have allowed their son to drive a motor vehicle
without proper license or permit thereby imputing acts of negligence to both
of them. But from this it cannot be inferred that there is a cause for action
against the mother, for under the law her liability can of death or incapacity
of her husband.The lower court therefore acted properly in dropping her
from the complaint.
In the case of Exconde v. Capuno2, there were two issues involved. The first
issue focuses on the vicarious liability of heads of school or the city school’s
supervisor and the second issue focuses on the civil liability of the father for
the damage caused by his son.
As for the first issue, the Supreme Court upheld that the provision on
vicarious civil liability of teachers and directors applies only when the school
involved is an arts and trade institution and not just any academic
institution. If the student who acted negligently is a student of an academic
institution not classified as arts and trade, then the teacher nor the head of
the academic institution cannot be held accountable for the damage done bh
the student.
As for the second issue, the Supreme Court elucidated that a father can be
held jointly and severally liable with his son for the damage or injury caused
by the latter if it failed to prove that he exercised the diligence of a good
father in order to prevent the damage.
EXCONDE v. CAPUNO
G.R. No. L-10134 June, 29, 1957
FACTS:
Dante Capuno, son of Delfin Capuno, was a member of the Boy Scouts
Organization and a student of the Bilintawak Elementary School situated in a
barrio in the City of San Pablo and on March 31, 1949 he attended a parade
in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal in said city upon instruction of the city school's
supervisor.
From the school Dante, with other students, boarded a jeep and when the
same started to run, he took hold of the wheel and drove it while the driver
sat on his left side. They have not gone far when the jeep turned turtle and
two of its passengers, Amado Ticzon and Isidore Caperiña, died as a
consequence. He was only 15 years old when he commited the crime.
Sabina Exconde filed an action for damages in the amount of P2,959.00 for
the death of her son Isidoro Caperiña against Delfin Capuno and his son
Dante Capuno.
It was argued by the defendants that it should only be Dante Capuno and
not his father Delfin be held liable because at the time of the accident, the
former was not under the control, supervision and custody, of the latter.
This defense was sustained by the Court of the First Instance and, as a
2
Sabina Exconde v. Delfin Capuno and Dante Capuno, G. R. No. L-10134, June 29, 1957
consequence it only convicted Dante Capuno to pay the damages claimed in
the complaint.
Before the Supreme Court, Exconde argued that the father is liable for the
damages in question jointly and severally with his son Dante because at the
time the latter committed the negligent act which resulted in the death of
the victim, he was a minor and was then living with his father, and inasmuch
as these facts are not disputed, the civil liability of the father is evident.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the head of the school or the city school’s supervisor be held
liable for the negligent act of Dante.
2. Whether defendant Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable, jointly and
severally with his son Dante, for damages resulting from the death of Isidoro
Caperiña caused by the negligent act of minor Dante Capuno.
RULING:
As for the first issue. The Supreme Court held in the negative. It
ratiocinated as follows:
The case comes under Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code, paragraph 1
and 5, which provides:
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
liable for any damages caused by the minor children who live with
them.
Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any
damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are under
their custody.
It is true that under the law above quoted, "teachers or directors of arts and
trades are liable for any damages caused by their pupils or apprentices while
they are under their custody", but this provision only applies to an institution
of arts and trades and not to any academic educational institution (Padilla,
Civil Law, 1953, Ed., Vol. IV, p. 841; See 12 Manresa, 4th Ed., p. 557).
Here Dante capuno was then a student of the Balintawak Elementary School
and as part of his extra-curricular activity, he attended the parade in honor
of Dr. Jose Rizal upon instruction of the city school's supervisor. And it was
in connection with that parade that Dante boarded a jeep with some
companions and while driving it, the accident occurred.
In the circumstances, it is clear that neither the head of that school, nor the
city school's supervisor, could be held liable for the negligent act of Dante
because he was not then a student of an institute of arts and trades as
provided by law.
As for the second issue: The Supreme Court held in the affirmative. It
ruled as follows:
The civil liability which the law impose upon the father, and, in case of his
death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the
minor children who live with them, is obvious.
The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they
prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage(Article 1903, last paragraph, Spanish Civil Code).
This defendants failed to prove. Hence, Delfin Capuno and Dante Capuno are
held jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the amount of damages.
In the case of Araneta v. Arreglado3, the Supreme Court held that parents
can be held vicariously liable in solidum with their son for the indemnity
award.
ARANETA v. ARREGLADO
G. R. No. L-11394, SEPTEMBER 9, 1958
FACTS:
Manuel S. Araneta and Benjamin Araneta, father and son, appeal from a
decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila (in its case No. 24322)
sentencing defendants Juan Arreglado, his wife, and his son, Jose Dario
Arreglado, to pay the former only P3,943 damages in lieu of the P112,000
claimed in the complaint.
On March 7, 1951, while plaintiff Benjamin Araneta seated atop a low ruined
wall bordering the Ateneo grounds, was talking with the other students of
the Ateneo de Manila. Dario Arreglado, 14 years of age and a former student
of the Ateneo, chanced to pass by.
Those on the wall called Dario and conversed with him, and in the course of
their talk, twitted him on his leaving the Ateneo and enrolling in the De La
Salle College.
Arreglado resented the banter and suddenly pulling from his pocket a
Japanese Lugar pistol (licensed in the name of his father Juan Arreglado),
fired the same at Araneta, hitting him in the lower jaw, and causing him to
drop backward, bleeding profusely. Benjamin was then taken to the school
infirmary and later to the Singian Hospital.
When he finally recovered, the gunshot wound left him with a degenerative
injury to the jawbone (mandible) and a scar in the lower portion of the face,
where the bullet had plowed through. The behavior of Benjamin was likewise
affected, he becoming inhibited and morose after leaving the hospital.
Dario Arreglado was indicted for frustrated homicide and pleaded guilty. But
since he was only 14 years of age when he committed the crime, the court
suspended the hearings pursuant to Article 80 of the RPC and ordered him
3
Manuel S. Araneta, Et al. V. Juan Arreglado, G.R. No. L-11394, September 9, 1958
committed to the care of Mr. Deogracias Lerma, under the supervision of the
Commissioner of Social Welfare conformably to Republic Act No. 47. Because
Arreglado observed proper conduct and discipline while on probation, the
court, upon recommendation of the Social Welfare Administrator, finally
discharged him on May 22, 1953, and quashed the criminal case.
Thereafter, on October 13, 1954, an action was instituted by Araneta and his
father against Juan Arreglado, his wife, and their son, Dario, to recover
material, moral and exemplary damages.
After trial, the Court of First Instance found that Dario’s father had acted
negligently in allowing his son to have access to the pistol used to injure
Benjamin Araneta, and sentenced defendants to pay P3,943, damages and
attorney's fees. The Aranetas appealed the amount of the indeminity award.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held in the affirmative and held the parents of Dario
liable in solidum for the indemnity award which was increased by the
Supreme Court in the amount of P18, 000. It held in this wise:
We agree with the appellants that the damages awarded by the lower court
for the injuries suffered by Benjamin Araneta are inadequate.
xxx
Still, taking into account the necessity and cost of corrective measures to
fully repair the damage; the pain suffered by the injured party; his feelings
of inferiority due to consciousness of his present deformity, as well as the
voluntary character of the injury inflicted; and further considering that a
repair, however skillfully conducted, is never equivalent to the original state,
we are of the opinion that the indemnity granted by the trial court should be
increased to a total of P18,000.
It is also the hope of the Court that the award in the present case will
remind licensed possessors of firearms of their peremptory duty to
adequately safeguard such dangerous weapons at all times, and to take all
requisite measures to prevent minors and other unauthorized parties from
having access thereto. Competent observers have recently called attention
to the fact that the growing teenage hooliganism in our society is principally
due to parent's complacency in and neglect of their progeny.
xxx
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed with the modification that
plaintiff Benjamin Araneta shall recover damages in the amount of Eighteen
Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00) from defendants Dario Arreglado and his
parents Mr. and Mrs. Juan Arreglado, who shall answer in solidum for the
payment of the indemnity, pursuant to Article 2194 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
In the case of Salen et. al. v. Balce4, the Supreme Court held that
4
Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera v. Jose Balce, G. R. No. L-14414, April 27, 1960
FACTS: Salen was the son of the plaintiffs in this present case. He
died from the wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce, the son of defendant
Balce. When the incident happened, Gumersindo Balce was still a minor
below 18 years of age, and was living with defendant Balce.
While we agree with the theory that, as a rule, the civil liability arising
from a crime shall be governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code,
we disagree with the contention that the subsidiary liability of persons for
acts of those who are under their custody should likewise be governed by
the same Code even in the absence of any provision governing the case, for
that would leave the transgression of certain right without any punishment
or sanction in the law. Such would be the case if we would uphold the theory
of appellee as sustained by the trial court.
It is true that under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a father is
made civilly liable for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is (1)
an imbecile, (2) an insane, (3) under 9 years of age, and (4) over 9 but
under 15 years of age, who act without discernment, unless it appears that
there is no fault or negligence on his part. This is because a son who
commits the act under any of those conditions is by law exempt from
criminal liability (Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, Revised Penal Code).
The idea is not to leave the act entirely unpunished but to attach
certain civil liability to the person who has the deliquent minor under his
legal authority or control.
But a minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from
criminal liability, for which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary
liability of his parents should he stand convicted. In that case, resort should
be had to the general law which is our Civil Code.
The particular law that governs this case is Article 2180, the pertinent
portion of which provides: "The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by the minor
children who lived in their company."
To hold that this provision does not apply to the instant case because
it only covers obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations
which arise from criminal offenses, 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 Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular
provision of our Civil Code xxx.
The liability of parents under Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code and
under Article 2180 of Civil Code was also explained in the case of Libi v.
Intermediate Court of Appeals5 (1992).
5Cresencio Libi * and Amelia Yap Libi v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Felipe Gotiong
and Shirley Gotiong , G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992
In the case of Paleyan v. Bangkili6 (1971), the Supreme Court held that the
mother is held solidarily liable with her son pursuant to Article 2180 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines. This case also emphasized that the only
exemption provided under said provision to relieve the parent from the
liability is when it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family which
was not proven by the mother in the instant case.
PALEYAN v. BANGKILI
G.R. No. L-22253 July 30, 1971
6Linda Y Paleyan, for her own and behalf of her Minor children, namely: Teresa, Fortunato,
Venancio And Jose, all surnamed Paleyan, v. Carlos Bangkili And Victoria Bangkili alias Cuyoyan,
G.R. No. L-22253, July 30, 1971
liability to the person who has the delinquent minor under
his legal authority or control. But a minor over 15 who acts
with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, for
which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability
of his parents should he stand convicted. In that case,
resort should be had to the general law which is our Civil
Code.
xxx
ELCANO v. HILL
G.R. NO. L-24803, MAY 26, 1977
ISSUES: May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil
Code be applied against Atty. Hill, notwithstanding the
undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of.
Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistenee
from his father, was already legally married?
xxx
7
Pedro Elcano and Patricia Elcano, in their capacity as Ascendants of Agapito Elcano, deceased
v. Reginald Hill, minor, and Marvin Hill, as father and Natural Guardian of said minor, G.R. No. L-
24803, May 26, 1977
but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible. The
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsible. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children who live in their company."
In the case of Tamargo v. CA8, the Supreme Court held that parental
authority should not be retroactively be transferred or vested to the
adopting parents by reason of the grant of the pertition for adoption so as to
burden them with the liability resulting from the tortious act of the erring
child. Parental authority still rests upon the natural parents of the child since
they were the ones who has the actual custody of the erring child when it
committed the crime.
TAMARGO v. CA
G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992
8
Macario Tamargo, Celso Tamargo And Aurelia Tamargo, V. Hon. Court Of Appeals, The Hon.
Ariston L. Rubio, RTC Judge, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur; Victor Bundoc; and Clara
Bundoc, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992
Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed by petitioner
Macario Tamargo, Jennifer's adopting parent, and petitioner
spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer's natural parents
against respondent spouses Victor and Clara Bundoc, Adelberto's
natural parents with whom he was living at the time of the tragic
incident.
xxx
Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the
father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for
any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with
them pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code. xxx
The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their
minor children living with them, may be seen to be based upon
the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such
parents. The civil law assumes that when an unemancipated
child living with its parents commits a tortious acts, the parents
were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty
closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control.
The Supreme Court did not upheld the idea that parental
authority was retroactively transferred to and vested in the
adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle
shooting happened. Retroactive effect, as stated by the Supreme
Court should not be given to the decree of adoption so as to
impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time
when adopting parents had no actual or physically custody over
the adopted child. Retroactive affect may perhaps be given to
the granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential
to permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of
the adopted child.
LIBI v. IAC
9
Cresencio Libi * and Amelia Yap Libi v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court, Felipe Gotiong
And Shirley Gotiong, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992
the house of her best friend, Malou Alfonso prior to the date of
the incident.
RULING:
xxx