LIBI V.

IAC
JUSTICE REGALADO
FACTS
- Respondent spouses are the legitimate parents of Julie Ann Gotiong, who was
1 when she died during the deplorable incident
- Petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, aged between 18 and 19; also
died during the same incident
- For around 2 years before their deaths, Julie Ann and Wendell were in a
relationship
- Dec-78, Julie Ann broke up with Wendell on account of his alleged sadism and
irresponsibility
- During the first weeks of Jan-79, Wendell kept pestering Julie Ann with
demands for a reconciliation; she refused; he then resorted to threatening her
- Julie Ann tried to avoid him
- 14-Jan-79, Julie Ann and Wendell died, each from a single gunshot wound
inflicted by a firearm (revolver), licensed in the name of Wendells dad
- There were no witnesses present
- Julie Anns parents posit that Wendell shot their daughter in cold blood, and
then proceeded to committing suicide
- Wendells parents on the other hand contend that a third party was
responsible; they submit that their son must have made enemies in relation
to his wo rasa narcotics informer of the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit
- Julies parents filed a case before CFI Cebu to recover damages, using NCC
218 as basis
- CFI: complaint dismissed for insufficiency of evidence
- IAC: ruled in favor of Gotiong spouses
ISSUES + RULING
***TESTIMONIES:
1. Dr. Cerna : there was an absence of gun powder in the entry point of the
bullet; inconclusive, with respect to such evidence, if Wendell shot himself;
Dr. Cerna however said that since around 8 hours passed before he could
examine Wendells body then it may have been possible that it was touched
beforehand; when he examined it, it was not washed but it was dried; based
on the trajectory of the bullet and its position, it is possible that he
committed suicide; smokeless powder may have been used
2. Lydia Ang testified that the apartment where she was staying faces the gas
station; that it is the second apartment; that from her window she can see
directly the gate of the Gotiongs and, that there is a firewall between her
apartment and the gas station. After seeing a man jump from the gate of the
Gotiongs to the rooftop of the Tans, she called the police station but the
telephone lines were busy. Later on, she talked with James Enrique Tan and
told him that she saw a man leap from the gate towards his rooftop.
3. However, James Enrique Tan testified that he saw a "shadow" on top of the
gate of the Gotiongs, but denied having talked with anyone regarding what

he saw. He explained that he lives in a duplex house with a garden in front of

it; that his house is next to Felipe Gotiongs house
4. Said shadow was Julies friend Manolo Alfonso
- Such testimonies point to the possibility that Wendell killed Julie and himself
W/N Wendells parents should be liable?
- YES.
- The diligence of a good father of a family required by law in a parent and
child relationship consists, to a large extent, of the instruction and
supervision of the child.
- Petitioners were gravely remiss in their duties as parents in not diligently
supervising the activities of their son, despite his minority and immaturity, so
much so that it was only at the time of Wendells death that they allegedly
discovered that he was a CANU agent and that Cresencios gun was missing
from the safety deposit box.
- Both parents were sadly wanting in their duty and responsibility in monitoring
and knowing the activities of their children who, for all they know, may be
engaged in dangerous work such as being drug informers, 17 or even drug
users.
- Neither was a plausible explanation given for the photograph of Wendell, with
a handwritten dedication to Julie Ann at the back thereof, 18 holding upright
what clearly appears as a revolver and on how or why he was in possession of
that firearm.
-

. . . In the instant case, minor son of herein defendants-appellees, Wendell Libi

somehow got hold of the key to the drawer where said gun was kept under lock
without defendant-spouses ever knowing that said gun had been missing from that
safety box since 1978 when Wendell Libi had) a picture taken wherein he proudly
displayed said gun and dedicated this picture to his sweetheart, Julie Ann Gotiong;
also since then, Wendell Libi was said to have kept said gun in his car, in keeping up
with his supposed role of a CANU agent . .

CONSEQUENCE OF IMPOSING SUBSIDIARY LIABILITY: if the liability of the

parents for crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is subsidiary, then
the parents can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense
that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damages
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 of 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
damages."cralaw virtua1aw library

We are also persuaded that the liability of the parents for felonies
committed by their minor children is likewise primary, not
subsidiary.

THE PARENTS ARE AND SHOULD BE HELD PRIMARILY LIABLE FOR THE CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM
CRIMINAL OFFENSES COMMITTED BY THEIR MINOR CHILDREN UNDER THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY OR
CONTROL, OR WHO LIVE IN THEIR COMPANY, UNLESS IT IS PROVEN THAT THE FORMER ACTED WITH
THE DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY TO PREVENT SUCH DAMAGES. THAT PRIMARY
LIABILITY IS PREMISED ON THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 101 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE WITH
RESPECT TO DAMAGES EX DELICTO CAUSED BY THEIR CHILDREN 9 YEARS OF AGE OR UNDER, OR
OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE WHO ACTED WITHOUT DISCERNMENT; AND, WITH REGARD TO
THEIR CHILDREN OVER 9 BUT UNDER 15 YEARS OF AGE WHO ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, OR 15
YEARS OR OVER BUT UNDER 21 YEARS OF AGE, SUCH PRIMARY LIABILITY SHALL BE IMPOSED
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 2180 OF THE CIVIL CODE. 31
UNDER SAID ARTICLE 2180, THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH LIABILITY SHALL BE EFFECTED AGAINST THE
FATHER AND, IN CASE OF HIS DEATH OR INCAPACITY, THE MOTHER. THIS WAS AMPLIFIED BY THE
CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SAME SHALL DEVOLVE UPON THE
FATHER AND, IN CASE OF HIS DEATH OR INCAPACITY, UPON THE MOTHER OR, IN CASE OF HER DEATH
OR INCAPACITY, UPON THE GUARDIAN, BUT THE LIABILITY MAY ALSO BE VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED BY A
RELATIVE OR FAMILY FRIEND OF THE YOUTHFUL OFFENDER. 32 HOWEVER, UNDER THE FAMILY CODE,
THIS CIVIL LIABILITY IS NOW, WITHOUT SUCH ALTERNATIVE QUALIFICATION, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE PARENTS AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER THE MINOR OFFENDER. 33 FOR
CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM QUASI-DELICTS COMMITTED BY MINORS, THE SAME RULES SHALL APPLY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLES 2180 AND 2182 OF THE CIVIL CODE, AS SO MODIFIED.