2.

Persons Liable; helpers acting within the scope of their

assigned tasks, even though the former are
i. Tortfeasor, for his own acts not engaged in any business or industry.

Article 2176 Civil Code; The State is responsible in like manner

when it acts through a special agent; but
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission not when the damage has been caused by
causes damage to another, there being the official to whom the task done properly
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the pertains, in which case what is provided in
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if Article 2176 shall be applicable.
there is no pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments
and is governed by the provisions of this of arts and trades shall be liable for
Chapter. damages caused by their pupils and
students or apprentices, so long as they
Article 2181 Civil Code; remain in their custody.

Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage The responsibility treated of in this article
caused by his dependents or employees shall cease when the persons herein
may recover from the latter what he has mentioned prove that they observed all the
paid or delivered in satisfaction of the diligence of a good father of a family to
claim. prevent damage.

ii. Persons liable for the acts of Art. 2181. Whoever pays for the damage
others; caused by his dependents or employees
may recover from the latter what he has
Article 2180 to 2182 Civil Code; paid or delivered in satisfaction of the
claim.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by
Article 2176 is demandable not only for Art. 2182. If the minor or insane person
one's own acts or omissions, but also for causing damage has no parents or
those of persons for whom one is guardian, the minor or insane person shall
responsible. be answerable with his own property in an
action against him where a guardian ad
The father and, in case of his death or litem shall be appointed.
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children
who live in their company. Parents;

Guardians are liable for damages caused by

the minors or incapacitated persons who
are under their authority and live in their
company.
Article 211, 221 and 236 Family Code;
The owners and managers of an
establishment or enterprise are likewise Art. 211. The father and the mother shall
responsible for damages caused by their jointly exercise parental authority over the
employees in the service of the branches in persons of their common children. In case
which the latter are employed or on the of disagreement, the father's decision shall
occasion of their functions. prevail, unless there is a judicial order to
the contrary.
Employers shall be liable for the damages
caused by their employees and household
Children shall always observe respect and the civil liability of the parents for quasi-
reverence towards their parents and are delict of their minor children is primary and
obliged to obey them as long as the not subsidiary and that responsibility shall
children are under parental authority. cease when the persons can prove that
they observe all the diligence of a good
Art. 221. Parents and other persons father of a family to prevent damage.
exercising parental authority shall be civilly However, Wendell’s mother testified that
liable for the injuries and damages caused her husband owns a gun which he kept in
by the acts or omissions of their a safety deposit box inside a drawer in their
unemancipated children living in their bedroom. Each of the spouses had their
company and under their parental own key.
authority subject to the appropriate
defenses provided by law. She likewise admitted that during the
incident, the gun was no longer in the
Art. 236. Emancipation for any cause shall safety deposit box. Wendell could not have
terminate parental authority over the gotten hold of the gun unless the key was
person and property of the child who shall left negligently lying around and that he
then be qualified and responsible for all has free access of the mother’s bag where
acts of civil life. the key was kept. The spouses failed to
observe and exercise the required diligence
of a good father to prevent such damage.
CASES:

LIBI vs. IAC, 214 SCRA 16; EXCONDE vs. CAPUNO, 1957;
(SEPARATE);
FACTS:

Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were a

sweetheart until the former broke up with
the latter after she found out the Wendell FUELLAS vs. CADANO, 1961;
was irresponsible and sadistic. Wendell
wanted reconciliation but was not granted FACTS:
by Julie so it prompted him to resort to
threats. One day, there were found dead Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of
from a single gunshot wound each coming defendant-appellant Agapito Fuellas, were
from the same gun. The parents of Julie both 13 years old and classmates at St.
herein private respondents filed a civil case Mary’s High School, Dansalan City. While
against the parents of Wendell to recover Pepito was studying his lessons in the
damages. Trial court dismissed the classroom, Rico took the pencil of one
complaint for insufficiency of evidence but Ernesto Cabanok and surreptitiously placed
was set aside by CA. it inside the pocket of Pepito. When Ernesto
asked Rico to return the pencil, it was
ISSUE: WON the parents should be held Pepito who returned the same, an act
liable for such damages. which angered Rico, who held the neck of
Pepito and pushed him to the floor.
HELD: Villamira, a teacher, separated Rico and
Pepito and told them to go home. Rico went
The subsidiary liability of parents for ahead, with Pepito following. When Pepito
damages caused by their minor children had just gone down of the schoolhouse, he
imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code was met by Rico, still in an angry mood.
and Art. 101 of Revised Penal Code covered Angelito Aba, a classmate, told the two to
obligations arising from both quasi-delicts shake hands. Pepito extended his hand to
and criminal offenses. The court held that Rico, but the latter instead held the former
by the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito negligence by repairing the damage
out of balance and pushed him to the caused”.
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 CUADRA vs. MONFORT, (1970);
position, Pepito suddenly cried out “My arm
is broken.” Rico then got up and went FACTS:
away. Pepito was helped by others to go
home. Maria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa
Monfort were both classmates in Mabini
That same evening Pepito was brought to Elementary School Bacolod City. In July
the Lanao General Hospital for treatment 1962, their teacher assigned the class to
and the results of the x-ray revealed that weed the school premises. While they were
there was a complete fracture of the radius doing so, MT Monfort found a headband
and ulna of the right forearm which and she jokingly shouted it as an
necessitated plaster casting. As a result, a earthworm and thereafter tossed it at MT
civil case for damages was filed against Cuadra who was hit in her eye. MT Cuadra’s
Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico. eye got infected. She was brought to the
hospital; her eyes were attempted to be
ISSUE: surgically repaired but she nevertheless
got blind in her right eye. MT Cuadra’s
WON Agapito Fuellas may be held liable for parents sued Alfonso Monfort (MT Monfort’s
damages for the deliberate criminal act of dad) based on Article 2180 of the Civil
his minor son. Code. The lower court ruled that Monfort
should pay for actual damages (cost of
HELD: hospitalization), moral damages and
attorney’s fees.
YES. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code,
the father and, in case of his death or ISSUE:
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children Whether or not Monfort is liable under
who live in their company. This civil liability Article 2180.
of the father or the mother, as the case
may be, is a necessary consequence of the HELD:
parental authority they exercise over them
and the only way by which they can relieve No. Article 2180 provides that the father,
themselves of this liability is if they prove in case of his incapacity or death, the
that they exercised all the diligence of a mother, is responsible for the damages
good father of a family to prevent the caused by the minor children who live in
damage. their company. The basis of this vicarious,
although primary, liability is fault or
Since children and wards do not yet have negligence, which is presumed from that
the capacity to govern themselves, the law which accompanied the causative act or
imposes upon the parents and guardians omission.
the duty of exercising special vigilance over
the acts of their children and wards in order The presumption is merely prima facie and
that damages to third persons due to the may therefore be rebutted. This is the clear
ignorance, lack of foresight or discernment and logical inference that may be drawn
of such children and wards may be from the last paragraph of Article 2180,
avoided. If the parents and guardians fail which states “that the responsibility treated
to comply with this duty, they should suffer of in this Article shall cease when the
the consequences of their abandonment or 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 child’s character which would reflect
unfavorably on her upbringing and for
which the blame could be attributed to her
parents.

RODRIGUEZ-LUNA vs. IAC, 1985;