VI.

PERSONS LIABLE
A. The tortfeasor

Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasidelict and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or
employees may recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction
of the claim.
Article 2194. The responsibility of two or more persons who are liable for quasidelict is solidary.

Worcester v. Ocampo
February 27, 1912
FACTS: Dean Worcester filed an action to recover damages resulting from an alleged
libelous publication against Martin Ocampo, Teodoro M. Kalaw, Lope K. Santos, Fidel A.
Reyes, Faustino Aguilar, et al, as the owners, directors, writers, editors and administrators of
the daily newspaper El Renacimiento (Spanish version) and Muling Pagsilang (tagalong
version). Worcester alleged that the defendants have been maliciously persecuting and
attacking him in the newspapers for a long time and they published an editorial entitled
Birds of Prey with the malicious intent of injuring Worcester, both as a private person and
as a government official as the editorial obviously referred to him.
Worcester alleged that he was likened to birds of prey in the following manner: Such are
the characteristics of the man who is at the same time an eagle who surprises and devours,
a vulture who gorges himself on the dead and putrid meats, an owl who affects a petulant
omniscience and a vampire who silently sucks the blood of the victim until he leaves it
bloodless.
TC: In favor of Worcester; Defendants jointly and severally liable for the P60k total
damages.
ISSUE: WON the defendants individual properties can be made jointly and severally liable
for the damages under the civil and commercial codes.
HELD: Yes. TC modified. Damages reduced, Santos absolved.
The present action is a tort.
Universal doctrine: each joint tortfeasor is not only individually liable for the tort in which
he participates, but is also jointly liable with his tortfeasors.
If several persons commit a tort, the plaintiff or person injured, has his election to sue all or
some of the parties jointly, or one of them separately, because the TORT IS IN ITS NATURE A
SEPARATE ACT OF EACH INDIVIDUAL.

It is not necessary that cooperation should be a direct, corporal act- e.g. assault and battery
committed by various persons, under the common law, they are all principals.
Under common law, he who aided or counseled, in any way, the commission of a crime, was
as much a principal as he who inflicted or committed the actual tort
General Rule: Joint tortfeasors are all the persons who command, instigate, promote,
encourage, advise, countenance, cooperate in, aid or abet the commission of a tort, or who
approve of it after it is done, if done for their benefit. They are each liable as principals, to
the same extent and in the same manner as if they had performed the wrongful act
themselves.
Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the tort which they commit.
Joint tortfeasors are not liable pro rata. The damages can not be apportioned among
them, except among themselves. They cannot insist upon an apportionment, for the purpose
of each paying an aliquot part. They are jointly and severally liable for the full
amount.
A payment in full of the damage done by one tortfeasor satisfies any claim which might exist
against the others. The release of one of the joint tortfeasors by agreement generally
operates to discharge all.
The court however may make findings as to which of the alleged joint tortfeasors are liable
and which are not, even if they are charged jointly and severally.

Article 2184. In motor vehicle mishaps, the owner is solidarily liable with his driver,
if the former, who was in the vehicle, could have, by the use of the due diligence,
prevented the misfortune. It is disputably presumed that a driver was negligent, if he
had been found guilty of reckless driving or violating traffic regulations at least twice
within the next preceding two months.

If the owner was not in the motor vehicle, the provisions of article 2180 are
applicable

UNDERWOOD VS CHAPMAN
FACTS: The facts of the case took place in the 1910s. J.H. Chapman visited a friend in Santa
Ana and while he was about to ride a vehicle to take him home he was struck by a car
owned by James Underwood and driven by his chauffeur. Chapman was on the correct lane.
Underwood was riding in the car when the incident happened. Apparently, the chauffeur,
coming from the opposite direction and was driving straight ahead and when the automobile
about to be boarded by Chapman was in front of him, he [the chauffeur] instead of swerving
left he suddenly swerved right to the direction of Chapman thereby hitting and running over
him.

ISSUE: Whether or not Underwood is liable for the negligent act of his chauffeur.
HELD: No. The general rule is that an owner who sits in his automobile, or othervehicle, and
permits his driver to continue in a violation of the law by the performance of negligent acts,
after he has had a reasonable opportunity to observe them and to direct that the driver
cease therefrom, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On the other hand, if the driver,
by a sudden act of negligence, and without the owner having a reasonable opportunity to
prevent the acts or its continuance, injures a person or violates the criminal law, the owner
of the automobile, although present therein at the time the act was committed, is not
responsible, either civilly or criminally, therefor. The act complained of must be continued in
the presence of the owner for such a length a time that the owner, by his acquiescence,
makes his drivers act his own. In the case at bar, it was not shown that there was a
sufficient period for Underwood to dissuade the chauffeur from the negligent act as the
swerving of the vehicle by the chauffeur was sudden.

CAEDO vs YU KHE THAI and BERNARDO

FACTS: Caedo and family were traveling Highway 54 on the way to the airport. Private
respondents were traveling on the opposite direction. Bernardo was the personal river of Yu.
Both vehicles were running at moderate speeds when a carritela was traveling the same
direction as Bernardos. The latter overtook the caritella and took the lane Caedos were
traveling and caused multiple injuries and damage to the Caedos. Bernardo was held liable.
ISSUE: Whether or not the owner of the vehicle who was riding with the driver at the time of
the accident be held solidarily liable.
RULING: The court ruled that if the causative factor was the drivers negligence, the owner
of the vehicle who was present is likewise held liable if he could have prevented the mishap
by the existence of due diligence. The basis of the master's liability in civil law is
not respondent superior but rather the relationship of paterfamilias. The theory is that
ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to the master and susceptible of timely
correction by him, reflects his own negligence if he fails to correct it in order to prevent
injury or damage.

Rodriguez-Luna vs IAC
FACTS:
The petitioners are the heirs of Roberto R. Luna who was killed in a vehicular collision. The
collision took place on January 18, 1970, at the go-kart practice area in Greenhills, San Juan,
Metro Manila. Those involved were the go-kart driven by the deceased, a business executive,
and a Toyota car driven by Luis dela Rosa, a minor of 13 years who had no driver's license. In
a suit for damages brought by the heirs of Roberto R. Luna against Luis dela Rosa and his
father Jose dela Rosa, the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 81078, rendered
the following judgment: Judgment was rendered sentencing the defendants Luis dela Rosa
and Jose dela Rosa to pay, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, to the plaintiffs the sum of
P1,650,000.00 as unearned net earnings of Roberto Luna, P12,000.00 as compensatory

damages, and P50,000.00 for the loss of his companionship, with legal interest from the
date of this decision; plus attorney's fees in the sum of P50,000.00, and the costs of suit.
The private respondents failed to pay the amounts and when required to explain they said
that they had no cash money. Accordingly, this Court directed the trial court to issue a writ of
execution. The execution yielded only a nominal amount. In the meantime, Luis dela Rosa is
now of age, married with two children, and living in Madrid, Spain with an uncle but only
casually employed. It is said: "His compensation is hardly enough to support his family. He
has no assets of his own as yet."
ISSUE: Whether or not Jose, the father, should be primarily or subsidiary liable with his son,
Luis.
HELD:
Primarily liable. The Dela Rosas invoke Elcano vs Hill for subsidiary liability only. In Elcano vs
Hill, it was held that article 2180 was applied to Atty Hill despite the emancipation by
marriage by his son, but as his son attained age, as a matter of equity, Atty Hill's liabilty
should only be subsiadiary as to his son. However, the Supreme Court was unwilling to apply
equity instead of strict law in this case because to do so will not serve the ends of justice.
Luis dela Rosa is abroad and beyond the reach of Philippine courts. Moreover, he does not
have any property either in the Philippines or elsewhere. In fact his earnings are insufficient
to support his family.

B. VICARIOUS LIABILITY (CASIS 354-356)

QUASI-TORT BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY, 6TH EDITION, P. 1489
P.D NO. 603
LIABILITIES OF PARENTS
Article 58. Torts. - Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by
the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code.
Substitute and Special Parental Authority (FAMILY CODE)
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall
exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified.

Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes
necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor
child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside
the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute
parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.
Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living
in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law.
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall terminate parental authority over the person and
property of the child who shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.

PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR FELONIES (RPC)

Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - The exemption from criminal
liability established in subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 12 and in subdivision 4 of Article
11 of this Code does not include exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced
subject to the following rules:
First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts committed by
an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of age, or by one over nine
but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without discernment, shall devolve upon those
having such person under their legal authority or control, unless it appears that there was no
fault or negligence on their part.
Should there be no person having such insane, imbecile or minor under his authority, legal
guardianship or control, or if such person be insolvent, said insane, imbecile, or minor shall
respond with their own property, excepting property exempt from execution, in accordance
with the civil law.
Second. In cases falling within subdivision 4 of Article 11, the persons for whose benefit the
harm has been prevented shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit which they may
have received.

The courts shall determine, in sound discretion, the proportionate amount for which each
one shall be liable.
When the respective shares cannot be equitably determined, even approximately, or when
the liability also attaches to the Government, or to the majority of the inhabitants of the
town, and, in all events, whenever the damages have been caused with the consent of the
authorities or their agents, indemnification shall be made in the manner prescribed by
special laws or regulations.
Third. In cases falling within subdivisions 5 and 6 of Article 12, the persons using violence or
causing the fears shall be primarily liable and secondarily, or, if there be no such persons,
those doing the act shall be liable, saving always to the latter that part of their property
exempt from execution.
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments. - In default of the persons criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and
any other persons or corporations shall be civilly liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of municipal ordinances or some general or
special police regulation shall have been committed by them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft
within their houses from guests lodging therein, or for the payment of the value thereof,
provided that such guests shall have notified in advance the innkeeper himself, or the
person representing him, of the deposit of such goods within the inn; and shall furthermore
have followed the directions which such innkeeper or his representative may have given
them with respect to the care and vigilance over such goods. No liability shall attach in case
of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons unless committed by the
innkeeper's employees.
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other persons. - The subsidiary liability established in
the next preceding article shall also apply to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties.

JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT:

SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. - A child fifteen (15) years of
age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention program
pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
CIVIL CODE

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by 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.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when
the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
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.
(1903a)
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim. (1904)
Article 2182. If the minor or insane person causing damage has no parents or guardian, the
minor or insane person shall be answerable with his own property in an action against him
where a guardian ad litem shall be appointed.

1. PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY (CASIS 356-363)

A. PARENTS

EXCONDE VS CAPUNO
FACTS: Dante Capuno was a 15 year old boy who was a pupil of Balintawak Elementary
School. In March 1949, he attended a boy scout parade for Dr. Jose Rizal. While they were
inside a jeep, he took control of the wheels which he later lost control of causing the jeep to
go turtle thereby killing two other students, Isidoro Caperina and one other. Isidoros mother,
Sabina Exconde, sued Dante Capuno for the death of her son. Pending the criminal action,
the mother reserved her right to file a separate civil action which she subsequently filed
against Dante and his dad, Delfin Capuno.
ISSUE: Whether or not Delfin Capuno, as the father of Dante is liable for damages.
HELD: Yes. The civil liability which the law imposes 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. This is necessary consequence of the parental authority they
exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping
them in their company, educating them and instructing them in proportion to their means,
while, on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation.
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 which Delfin
failed to prove.
On the other hand, the school is not liable. It is true that under the law, 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.
JUSTICE J.B.L. REYES Dissenting:
Delfin Capuno should be relieved from liability. There is no sound reason for limiting the
liability to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. What substantial difference
is there between them in so far as, concerns the proper supervision and vigilance over their
pupils? It cannot be seriously contended that an academic teacher is exempt from the duty
of watching do not commit a tort to the detriment of third persons, so long as they are in
a position to exercise authority and supervision over the pupil.

SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA vs. JOSE BALCE

G.R. No. L-14414. 27 April 1960.
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 quasidelicts 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.
AGAPITO FUELLAS, petitioner, vs. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. L-14409 [October 31, 1961]
FACTS: Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-appellant Agapito Fuellas, were
both 13 years old and classmates at St. Marys High School, Dansalan City. While Pepito was
studying his lessons in the classroom, Rico took the pencil of one Ernesto Cabanok and
surreptitiously placed it inside the pocket of Pepito. When Ernesto asked Rico to return the
pencil, it was Pepito who returned the same, an act which angered Rico, who held the neck
of Pepito and pushed him to the floor. Villamira, a teacher, separated Rico and Pepito and
told them to go home. Rico went ahead, with Pepito following. When Pepito had just gone
down of the schoolhouse, he was met by Rico, still in an angry mood. Angelito Aba, a
classmate, told the two to shake hands. Pepito extended his hand to Rico, but the latter
instead held the former by the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito out of balance and
pushed him to the ground. Pepito fell on his right side with his right arm under his body,
whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. While Rico was in such position, Pepito suddenly cried
out My arm is broken. Rico then got up and went away. Pepito was helped by others to go
home. That same evening Pepito was brought to the Lanao General Hospital for treatment
and the results of the x-ray revealed that there was a complete fracture of the radius and
ulna of the right forearm which necessitated plaster casting. As a result, a civil case for
damages was filed against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico.
ISSUE: WON Agapito Fuellas may be held liable for damages for the deliberate criminal act
of his minor son.
HELD: YES. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, 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. This civil liability of the father or the mother, as the case may be, is a
necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them and 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. Since children and wards
do not yet have the capacity to govern themselves, the law imposes upon the parents and
guardians the duty of exercising special vigilance over the acts of their children and wards in
order that damages to third persons due to the ignorance, lack of foresight or discernment
of such children and wards may be avoided. If the parents and guardians fail to comply with
this duty, they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by
repairing the damage caused.
Gutierrez vs Gutierrez (1931)
Facts: On February 2, 1930, a passenger truck and an automobile of private ownership
collided while attempting to pass each other on the Talon bridge on the Manila South Road in
the municipality of Las Pias. The diver of the car is an 18 y/o boy, son of the cars owners. It
was found by the trial court that both the boy and the driver of the autobus were negligent
by which neither of them were willing to slow up and give the right of way to the other.
Plaintiff is the passenger of the bus who as a result of the incident fractured his right leg to

his damage and prejudice. Thus, plaintiff sued the boy, his parents as owners of the car, the
bus driver and its owner for damages. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue: How should civil liability be imposed upon parties in the case at bar?
Held: The case is dealing with the civil liability of parties for obligations which arise from
fault or negligence.
For the boy, it is his father who is liable (based on culpa aquiliana) to the plaintiff because of
the following conditions; first, the car was of general use of the family, second, the boy was
authorized or designated by his father to run the car, third, at the time of the collision the
car is used for the purpose not of the childs pleasure but that of the other members of the
car owners family members. The theory of the law is that the running of the machine by a
child to carry other members of the family is within the scope of the owners business, so
that he is liable for the negligence of the child because of the relationship of master and
servant.
For the chauffer and the bus owner (based on culpa contractual), their liability rests upon
the contract (the safety that is assured by the operator upon the passenger) whereas that
degree of care expected from the chauffer is lacking.
(GO BACK TO RODRIGUEZ LUNA CASE)
Libi vs. IAC
FACTS: Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were a sweetheart until the former broke up with
the latter after she found out the Wendell was irresponsible and sadistic. Wendell wanted
reconciliation but was not granted by Julie so it prompted him to resort to threats. One day,
there were found dead from a single gunshot wound each coming from the same gun. The
parents of Julie herein private respondents filed a civil case against the parents of Wendell to
recover damages. Trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but was
set aside by CA.
ISSUE: WON the parents should be held liable for such damages.
HELD: The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children
imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code and Art. 101 of Revised Penal Code covered
obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses. The court held that the
civil liability of the parents for quasi-delict of their minor children is primary and not
subsidiary and that responsibility shall cease when the persons can prove that they observe
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. However, Wendells mother
testified that her husband owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer
in their bedroom. Each of the spouses had their own key. She likewise admitted that during
the incident, the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box. Wendell could not have
gotten hold of the gun unless the key was left negligently lying around and that he has free
access of the mothers bag where the key was kept. The spouses failed to observe and
exercise the required diligence of a good father to prevent such damage.
Tamargo vs CA
GR No. 85044, June 3, 1992
FACTS: In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, minor, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo
with an air rifle causing injuries that resulted in her death. The petitioners, natural parents

of Tamargo, filed a complaint for damages against the natural parents of Adelberto with
whom he was living the time of the tragic incident.
In December 1981, the spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto Bundoc. Such
petition was granted on November 1982 after the tragic incident.
ISSUE: WON parental authority concerned may be given retroactive effect so as to make
adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage case filed against the adopted child
where actual custody was lodged with the biological parents.
HELD: Parental liability is a natural or logical consequence of duties and responsibilities of
parents, their parental authority which includes instructing, controlling and disciplining the
child. In the case at bar, during the shooting incident, parental authority over Adelberto was
still lodged with the natural parents. It follows that they are the indispensable parties to the
suit for damages. Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the
child under their parental authority in accordance with the civil code.
SC did not consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to
impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time when they had no actual or
physical custody over the adopted child. Retroactivity may be essential if it permits accrual
of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. Under Article 35 of the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during
the period of trial custody however in this case, trial custody period either had not yet begin
nor had been completed at the time of the shooting incident. Hence, actual custody was
then with the natural parents of Adelberto.
CUADRA VS MONFORT

FACTS: 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
Cuadras 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 Cuadras parents sued
Alfonso Monfort (MT Monforts 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 attorneys 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 childs 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.

B. GUARDIANS
Chapter 2. Substitute and Special Parental Authority (FAMILY CODE)
Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall
exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified.
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor
child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.

CIVIL CODE
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by 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.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when
the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
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.
(1903a)
Article 2181. Whoever pays for the damage caused by his dependents or employees may
recover from the latter what he has paid or delivered in satisfaction of the claim.

C. OTHER PERSONS EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY (FAMILY CODE)

Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the
injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living
in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses
provided by law.

Art. 216. In default of parents or a judicially appointed guardian, the following person shall
exercise substitute parental authority over the child in the order indicated:
(1) The surviving grandparent, as provided in Art. 214;
(2) The oldest brother or sister, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified; and
(3) The child's actual custodian, over twenty-one years of age, unless unfit or
disqualified.
Whenever the appointment or a judicial guardian over the property of the child becomes
necessary, the same order of preference shall be observed. (349a, 351a, 354a)
Art. 217. In case of foundlings, abandoned neglected or abused children and other children
similarly situated, parental authority shall be entrusted in summary judicial proceedings to
heads of children's homes, orphanages and similar institutions duly accredited by the proper
government agency.

2. TEACHERS AND HEADS OF INSTITUTIONS (CASIS 363-382)

FAMILY CODE:
Art. 218. The school, its administrators and teachers, or the individual, entity or institution
engaged in child are shall have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor
child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.
Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authorized activities whether inside or outside
the premises of the school, entity or institution. (349a)
Art. 219. Those given the authority and responsibility under the preceding Article shall be
principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the
unemancipated minor. The parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute
parental authority over said minor shall be subsidiarily liable.

Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own
acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.

Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are
under their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by 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.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when
the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in
which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
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.

PALISOC VS BRILLANTES

FACTS: In March 1966, while Dominador Palisoc (16 years old) was watching Virgilio Daffon
and Desiderio Cruz work on a machine in their laboratory class in the Manila Technical
Institute (a school of arts and trades), Daffon scolded Palisoc for just standing around like a
foreman. This caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and a fistfight ensued
between the two. Daffon delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. The parents of Palisoc
sued Daffon, the school president (Teodosio Valenton), the instructor (Santiago Quibulue),
and the owner (Antonio Brillantes). The basis of the suit against Valenton, Quibulue, and
Brillantes was Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
The lower court, as well as the CA, ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that
Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes are not liable because under Article 2180, they are only
liable so long as they [the students] remain in their custody. And that this means, as
per Mercado vs Court of Appeals, that teachers or heads of establishments are only liable for
the tortious acts of their students if the students are living and boarding with the teacher or
other officials of the school which Daffon was not.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling in the Mercado Case still applies.
HELD: No. The SC abandoned the ruling in the Mercado Case as well as the ruling in
the Exconde Case as they adopted Justice JBL Reyes dissenting opinion in the latter case.
Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the school must be held jointly
and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon. The unfortunate death resulting from the
fight between the students could have been avoided, had said defendants but complied with
their duty of providing adequate supervision over the activities of the students in the school
premises to protect their students from harm, whether at the hands of fellow students or
other parties. At any rate, the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such
liability, in compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180, Civil Code, by (proving) that
they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. In the light
of the factual findings of the lower courts decision, said defendants failed to prove such
exemption from liability.
The SC reiterated that there is nothing in the law which

prescribes that a student must be living and boarding with his teacher or in the school
before heads and teachers of the school may be held liable for the tortious acts of their
students.

AMADORA VS CA

FACTS: In April 1972, while the high school students of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos were
in the school auditorium, a certain Pablito Daffon fired a gun. The stray bullet hit Alfredo
Amadora. Alfredo died. Daffon was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
The parents of Alfredo sued the school for damages under Article 2180 of the Civil Code
because of the schools negligence.
The trial court ruled in favor of Amadora. The trial court ruled that the principal, the dean of
boys, as well as the teacher-in-charge are all civilly liable. The school appealed as it averred
that when the incident happened, the school year has already ended. Amadora argued that
even though the semester has already ended, his son was there in school to complete a
school requirement in his Physics subject. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school.
The CA ruled that under the last paragraph of Article 2180, only schools of arts and trades
(vocational schools) are liable not academic schools like Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos.
ISSUE: Whether or not Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, an academic school, is liable under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the tortuous act of its students.
HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court made a re-examination of the provision on the last
paragraph of Article 2180 which provides:
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as they remain in their custody.
The Supreme Court said that it is time to update the interpretation of the above law due to
the changing times where there is hardly a distinction between schools of arts and trade and
academic schools. That being said, the Supreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic or
not, may be held liable under the said provision of Article 2180.
The Supreme Court however clarified that the school, whether academic or not, should not
be held directly liable. Its liability is only subsidiary.
For non-academic schools, it would be the principal or head of school who should be directly
liable for the tortuous act of its students. This is because historically, in non-academic
schools, the head of school exercised a closer administration over their students than heads
of academic schools. In short, they are more hands on to their students.

For academic schools, it would be the teacher-in-charge who would be directly liable for the
tortuous act of the students and not the dean or the head of school.
The Supreme Court also ruled that such liability does not cease when the school year ends
or when the semester ends. Liability applies whenever the student is in the custody of the
school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within
its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended at the time of
the happening of the incident. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school
premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate
student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the
enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over
the student continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than
relaxing in the campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the
ambience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and subject to the
discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180.
At any rate, the REMEDY of the teacher, to avoid direct liability, and for the school, to avoid
subsidiary liability, is to show proof that he, the teacher, exercised the necessary
precautions to prevent the injury complained of, and the school exercised the diligence of
a bonus pater familias.
In this case however, the Physics teacher in charge was not properly named, and there was
no sufficient evidence presented to make the said teacher-in-charge liable. Absent the direct
liability of the teachers because of the foregoing reason, the school cannot be held
subsidiarily liable too.

Federico Ylarde V. Edgardo Aquino

Lessons Applicable: Good Father of a Family (Torts and Damages)
FACTS:

1962: Sergio Banez started burying huge stones which were remnants of the old
school shop that was destroyed in World War II because they were serious hazards to the
schoolchildren

October 7, 1963: Edgardo Aquino gathered 18 of his male pupils, aged 10 to 11, after
class dismissal and ordered them to dig beside a one-ton concrete block in order to make
a hole wherein the stone can be buried.

The work was left unfinished.

October 8, 1963: Aquino called Reynaldo Alonso, Francisco Alcantara, Ismael Abaga
and Novelito Ylarde of the original 18 pupils to continue the digging

they dug until the excavation was 1 meter and 40 centimeters deep

Aquino alone continued digging while the pupils remained inside the pit
throwing out the loose soil that was brought about by the digging

When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, they
got out of the hole

Aquino left the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he
went to see Banez who was about 30 meters away to key to the school workroom where
he could get some rope

A few minutes after Aquino left, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully jumped into
the pit.

without any warning at all, Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block causing
it to slide down towards the opening.

Alonso and Alcantara were able to scramble out of the excavation on time

unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete block caught him before he could get
out, pinning him to the wall in a standing position

Ylarde sustained the following injuries:

1. Contusion with hematoma, left inguinal region and suprapubic region.
2. Contusion with ecchymosis entire scrotal region.
3. Lacerated wound, left lateral aspect of penile skin with phimosis
4. Abrasion, gluteal region, bilateral.
5. Intraperitoneal and extrapertitoneal extravasation of blood and urine about 2 liters.
6. Fracture, simple, symphesis pubis
7. Ruptured (macerated) urinary bladder with body of bladder almost entirely separated
from its neck.

3 days later, Novelito Ylarde died.

Ylarde's parents filed a suit for damages against both Aquino and Soriano, principal

lower court:
1.
digging done by the pupils is in line with their course called Work Education
2.
Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
3.
demise of Ylarde was due to his own reckless imprudence

CA: affirmed

ISSUE: W/N Aquino and Soriano should be held liable for negligence
HELD: YES. the petition GRANTED. Edagardo Aquino to pay petitioners the following:
(1) Indemnity for the death of Child Ylarde P30,000.00
(2) Exemplary damages 10,000.00
(3) Moral damages 20,000.00

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre- existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter.
Art. 2180. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages
caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

As regards the principal, We hold that he cannot be made responsible for the death of
the child Ylarde, he being the head of an academic school and not a school of arts and
trades

Soriano did not give any instruction regarding the digging

GR: teachers shall be liable for the acts of their students

EX: where the school is technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who
shall be answerable

Aquino acted with fault and gross negligence when he:

(1) failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers

(2) required the children to remain inside the pit even after they had finished digging,
knowing that the huge block was lying nearby and could be easily pushed or kicked aside
by any pupil who by chance may go to the perilous area
(3) ordered them to level the soil around the excavation when it was so apparent that the
huge stone was at the brink of falling
(4) went to a place where he would not be able to check on the children's safety
(5) left the children close to the excavation, an obviously attractive nuisance.
negligent act of Aquino in leaving his pupils in such a dangerous site has
a direct causal connection to the death of the child Ylarde
it was but natural for the children to play around
the child Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation
created by Aquino
the excavation should not be placed in the category of school gardening, planting
trees, and the like as these undertakings do not expose the children to any risk that could
result in death or physical injuries
A reasonably prudent person would have foreseen that bringing children to an
excavation site, and more so, leaving them there all by themselves, may result in an
accident. An ordinarily careful human being would not assume that a simple warning "not
to touch the stone" is sufficient to cast away all the serious danger that a huge concrete
block adjacent to an excavation would present to the children. Moreover, a teacher who
stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made sure that the children are protected
from all harm in his company.

Salvosa v. IAC
Facts of the Case:
Baguio Colleges Foundation is an academic institution. However, it is also an institution of
arts and trade because BCF has a full-fledged technical-vocational department offering
Communication, Broadcast and Teletype Technician courses as well as Electronics
Serviceman and Automotive Mechanics courses.
Within the premises of the BCF is an ROTC Unit. The Baguio Colleges Foundation ROTC Unit
had Jimmy B. Abon as its duly appointed armorer. As armorer of the ROTC Unit, Jimmy
B. Abon received his appointment from the AFP. Not being an employee of the BCF, he also

received his salary from the AFP, as well as orders from Captain Roberto C. Ungos. Jimmy
B. Abon was also a commerce student of the BCF.
On 3 March 1977, at around 8:00 p.m., in the parking space of BCF, Jimmy B. Abonshot
Napoleon Castro a student of the University of Baguio with an unlicensedfirearm which the
former took from the armory of the ROTC Unit of the BCF. As a result, Napoleon Castro died
and Jimmy B. Abon was prosecuted for, and convicted of the crime of Homicide.
Subsequently, the heirs of Napoleon Castro sued for damages, impleading Jimmy
B.Abon and the BCF .
Issue:
WON BCF is subsidiarily liable.
Ruling of the Case:
Under the penultimate paragraph of Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, teachers or heads of
establishments of arts and trades are liable for damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody. The rationale of such
liability is that so long as the student remains in the custody of a teacher, the latter stands,
to a certain extent, in loco parentis as to the student and is called upon to exercise
reasonable supervision over the conduct of the student. Likewise, the phrase used in [Art.
2180 so long as (the students) remain in their custody means the protective and
supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers exercise over the pupils and
students for as long as they are at attendance in the school, including recess time. Jimmy
B. Abon cannot be considered to have been at attendance in the school, or in the custody
of BCF, when he shot NapoleonCastro. 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.

ST. FRANCIS HIGH SCHOOL VS. CA

FACTS: Ferdinand Castillo, a freshman student at the St. Francis High School, wanted to join
a school picnic. His parents, respondents spouses Dr. Romulo Castillo and Lilia Cadiz Castillo,
because of short notice, did not allow their son to join but merely allowed him to bring food
to the teachers for the picnic, with the directive that he should go back home after doing so.
However, because of persuasion of the teachers, Ferdinand went on with them to the beach.
During the picnic, one of the female teachers was apparently drowning. Some of the

students, including Ferdinand, came to her rescue, but in the process, it was Ferdinand
himself who drowned. He died. Respondent spouses filed a civil case against petitioner and
some of their teachers. Trial court found teachers liable but dismissed complaint against the
school.
ISSUE: W/N petitioner school and teachers are liable.
RULING: Petition granted.
RATIO: Before an employer may be held liable for the negligence of his employee, the act or
omission which caused damage must have occurred while an employee was in the
performance of his assigned tasks. In the case at bar, the teachers/petitioners were not in
the actual performance of their assigned tasks. What was held was a purely private affair, a
picnic, which did not have permit from the school since it was not a school sanctioned
activity. Mere knowledge by petitioner/principal of the planning of the picnic does not in any
way consent to the holding of the same.
No negligence could be attributable to the petitioners-teachers to warrant the award of
damages to the respondents-spouses. The class adviser of the section where Ferdinand
belonged, did her best and exercised diligence of a good father of a family to prevent any
untoward incident or damages to all the students who joined the picnic.
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION VS. CA Case Digest
FACTS: Carlitos Bautista was a third year student at the Philippine School of Business
Administration. Assailants, who were not members of the schools academic community,
while in the premises of PSBA, stabbed Bautista to death. This incident prompted his parents
to file a suit against PSBA and its corporate officers for damages due to their alleged
negligence, recklessness and lack of security precautions, means and methods before,
during and after the attack on the victim.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the compliant states no cause of
action against them based on quasi-delicts, as the said rule does not cover academic
institutions. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Their motion for reconsideration
was likewise dismissed, and was affirmed by the appellate court. Hence, the case was
forwarded to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not PSBA is liable for the death of the student.
RULING: Because the circumstances of the present case evince a contractual relation
between the PSBA and Carlitos Bautista, the rules on quasi-delict do not really govern. A
perusal of Article 2176 shows that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known
as extra-contractual obligations, arise only between parties not otherwise bound by contract,
whether express or implied. However, this impression has not prevented this Court from
determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract.
Article 2180, in conjunction with Article 2176 of the Civil Code, establishes the rule in in loco
parentis. Article 2180 provides that the damage should have been caused or inflicted by
pupils or students of the educational institution sought to be held liable for the acts of its
pupils or students while in its custody. However, this material situation does not exist in the
present case for, as earlier indicated, the assailants of Carlitos were not students of the
PSBA, for whose acts the school could be made liable. But it does not necessarily follow that
PSBA is absolved form liability.
St. Mary's Academy vs Carpetanos

FACTS:
Herein petitioner, conducted an enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996 They visited
schools from where prospective enrollees were studying. Sherwin Carpitanos joined the
campaign. Along with the other high school students, they rode a Mitsubishi jeep owned by
Vivencio Villanueva on their way to Larayan Elementary School. Such jeep was driven by
James Daniel II, a 15 year old student of the same school. It was alleged that he drove the
jeep in a reckless manner which resulted for it to turned turtle. Sherwin died due to this
accident.
ISSUE: WON petitioner should be held liable for the damages.
HELD:
CA held petitioner liable for the death of Sherwin under Article 218 and 219 of the Family
Code where it was pointed that they were negligent in allowing a minor to drive and not
having a teacher accompany the minor students in the jeep. However, for them to be held
liable, the act or omission to be considered negligent must be the proximate cause of the
injury caused thus, negligence needs to have a causal connection to the accident. It must
be direct and natural sequence of events, unbroken by any efficient intervening causes. The
parents of the victim failed to show such negligence on the part of the petitioner. The
spouses Villanueva admitted that the immediate cause of the accident was not the reckless
driving of James but the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep. Futhermore,
there was no evidence that petitioner allowed the minor to drive the jeep of Villanueva. The
mechanical defect was an event over which the school has no control hence they may not
be held liable for the death resulting from such accident.
The registered owner of any vehicle, even if not used for public service, would primarily be
responsible to the public or to 3rd persons for injuries caused while it is being driven on the
road. It is not the school, but the registered owner of the vehicle who shall be held
responsible for damages for the death of Sherwin. Case was remanded to the trial court for
determination of the liability of the defendants excluding herein petitioner.