CRESENCIO LIBI** and AMELIA YAP LIBI, petitioners,vs. HON.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, FELIPE GOTIONG and SHIRLEY GOTIONG, respondents. Facts: Deceased Julie Ann Gotiong, 18 years old, and deceased Wendell Libi, between 18 to 19 years old, were sweethearts for two years prior to the incident. After the Julie decided to end the relationship finding Wendell sadistic and irresponsible, the latter incessantly pursued her and prayed that they be together again this also made the latter resort to threats. But Julie hold steadfast to her decision. On the day of the incident, the two were found shot dead with a Smith and Wesson revolver. The parents of the Julie instituted this case against the parents of the Wendell for damages. Issue: Whether or not the parents of the Wendell Libi is still liable for the death of Julie Ann Gotiong? YES HELD: The parents of Wendell are held liable for not exercising due diligence, diligentissimi patris familias, (Art. 2180). His father owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box. The father and the mother each had a key and wendell knew of it. The key must have been negligently left lying around or he had free access to it, such as the bag of his mother. The said gun was missing. The parents were also unable to explain the photograph of their son holding a gun. The said photograph was dedicated to the girl. Moreover, they were remiss in their duties as parents as not being able to know that their son was a Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unite (CANU) agent involved in a dangerous work of as either a drug informer or drug user. The damages is based on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Art. 101 of RPC doesnt apply since the guy is or above 18 years old already.

We believe that the civil liability of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary. In fact, if we apply Article 2194 of said code which provides for solidary liability of joint tortfeasors, the persons responsible for the act or omission, in this case the minor and the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are solidarily liable. Accordingly, such parental liability is primary and not subsidiary, hence the last paragraph of Article 2180 provides that (t)he 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. Criminal Law; Civil liability of parents for crimes committed by their minor children. Accordingly, just like the rule in Article 2180 of the Civil Code, xxx the civil liability of the parents for crimes committed by their minor children is likewise direct and primary, and also subject to the defense of lack of fault or negligence on their part, that is, the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. That in both quasi-delicts and crimes the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both codes that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property only in the absence or in case of insolvency of the former. Thus, for civil liability ex quasi delicto of minors, Article 2182 of the Civil Code states that (i)f the minor causing damage has no parents or guardian, the minor x x x shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed. For civil liability ex delicto of minors, an equivalent provision is found in the third paragraph of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit: Should there be no person having such x x x minor under his authority, legal guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said x x x minor shall respond with (his) own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance with civil law.