G.R. No. L-14342 - Mercado vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner: Ciriaco L. Mercado, father of Augusto Mercado.
Respondents: Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and his parents, Ana Pineda and Manuel L. Quisumbing.
Both children, Augusto Mercado and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr., were classmates at Lourdes Catholic School, Kanlaon, Quezon City.

On February 22, 1966, a quarrel erupted between Augusto Mercado and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. over a "pitogo" (an empty nutshell used as a piggy bank).
The "pitogo", owned by Augusto Mercado, had been lent to Benedicto P. Lim, who in turn lent it to Renato Legaspi. Renato and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. were unaware it belonged to Augusto.
Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. told Augusto not to retrieve the "pitogo" from Renato because Renato was better at using it, which led Augusto to resent Manuel’s remark and aggressively push him.
The fight escalated; Augusto Mercado inflicted wounds on Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. with a piece of razor on the right cheek.

The complaint was initially filed before the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint.
The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered petitioner to pay P2,000 as moral damages and P50 for medical expenses to Manuel Quisumbing, Jr.
Petitioner filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Medical evidence: The doctor who treated Manuel Quisumbing, Jr., testified for plaintiffs, but no exact amount of medical fees was established. The child was not hospitalized.
The Court of Appeals estimated medical expenses at P50.
Moral damages of P2,000 were awarded for the suffering of the child due to the wound.
Claims for moral damages by Manuel Quisumbing, Sr. and Ana Pineda (parents) and attorney’s fees were denied by the Court of Appeals.
Petitioner argued the school should be liable, not him, since the incident happened on school premises during recess.

Whether the father (petitioner) can be held liable for the tort of his minor son causing injury to a classmate.
Whether the school or its teachers can be held liable for the injury caused by the pupil during school hours on school premises.
Whether the moral damages awarded by the Court of Appeals were excessive and justified.
Whether plaintiffs’ parents are entitled to moral damages and attorney’s fees.