Professional Documents
Culture Documents
30 Phil 768 – Civil Law – Torts and Damages – Distinction of Liability of Employers Under Article 2180
and Their Liability for Breach of Contract
On January 20, 1915, Cangco was riding the train of Manila Railroad Co (MRC). He was an employee
of the latter and he was given a pass so that he could ride the train for free. When he was nearing his
destination at about 7pm, he arose from his seat even though the train was not at full stop. When he
was about to alight from the train (which was still slightly moving) he accidentally stepped on a
sack of watermelons which he failed to notice due to the fact that it was dim. This caused him to lose
his balance at the door and he fell and his arm was crushed by the train and he suffered other
serious injuries. He was dragged a few meters more as the train slowed down.
It was established that the employees of MRC were negligent in piling the sacks of watermelons.
MRC raised as a defense the fact that Cangco was also negligent as he failed to exercise diligence in
alighting from the train as he did not wait for it to stop.
ISSUE: Whether or not Manila Railroad Co is liable for damages.
HELD: Yes. Alighting from a moving train while it is slowing down is a common practice and a lot of
people are doing so every day without suffering injury. Cangco has the vigor and agility of young
manhood, and it was by no means so risky for him to get off while the train was yet moving as the
same act would have been in an aged or feeble person. He was also ignorant of the fact that sacks of
watermelons were there as there were no appropriate warnings and the place was dimly lit.
The Court also elucidated on the distinction between the liability of employers under Article 2180
and their liability for breach of contract [of carriage]:
NOTES: But, if the master has not been guilty of any negligence whatever in the selection and
direction of the servant, he is not liable for the acts of the latter, whatever done within the scope of
his employment or not, if the damage done by the servant does not amount to a breach of the
contract between the master and the person injured.
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, Wendell’s 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 mother’s bag where the key was kept. The spouses failed to observe and
exercise the required diligence of a good father to prevent such damage.
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.
FACTS:
In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, a minor, shot and killed Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle.
Jennifer's natural parents filed civil complaints for damages with the RTC against Bundoc's natural
parents.
In December 1981, spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto. The petition was granted in
November 1982.
Adelberto's parents, in their Answer, claimed that the spouses Rapisura were indispensable parties
to the action since parental authority had shifted to them from the moment the petition for
adoption was decreed. Spouses Tamargo contended that since Adelberto was then actually living
with his natural parents, parental authority had not ceased by mere filing and granting of the
petition for adoption. Trial court dismissed the spouses Tamargo's petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the spouses Rapisura are the indispensable parties to actions committed by
Adelberto.
RULING:
No. In Article 221 of the Family Code states that: "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 defences provided by law." In the case at bar, parental authority over Adelberto was still
lodged with the natural parents at the time the shooting incident happened. It follows that the
natural parents are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
SC held that parental authority had not been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting
parents, at the time the shooting happened. It do not consider that retroactive effect may be given to
the decree of the adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at the time
when adopting parents had no actual custody over the adopted child. Retroactive affect may be
essential if it permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.