Case Summary (G.R. No. L-21484)
Procedural History
An action for damages based on quasi-delict was filed by the parents of Maria Teresa Cuadra. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental rendered judgment for the plaintiffs awarding actual, moral damages and attorney’s fees. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals; because the facts were not in issue the case was certified to the Supreme Court for final disposition. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the complaint. One justice dissented.
Facts
On July 9, 1962, while assigned with classmates to weed school grounds, Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband and, jokingly claiming it was an earthworm, tossed it to frighten Maria Teresa Cuadra. The object struck Cuadra’s right eye as she turned toward her friend. Immediate home treatment followed; on July 10 the eye became swollen and the parents sought medical care. Cuadra underwent two surgical operations (July 20 and August 4, 1962) and was hospitalized for a total of twenty-three days. The parents incurred medical expenses totaling P1,703.75. Despite treatment, Cuadra lost sight in her right eye.
Issues Presented
Whether a parent is civilly liable under the Civil Code for damages caused by a minor child’s act committed at school; specifically, whether Article 2180 imposes liability on the father for his daughter’s prank that caused injury, and what degree of diligence (the “all the diligence of a good father of a family”) the parent must prove to escape liability.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Constitutional basis: the 1935 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date precedes the 1987 Constitution).
Controlling statutory provisions: Civil Code, Article 2176 and Article 2180, which establish liability for quasi-delict and extend the obligation to those for whom one is responsible, including parents for the acts of minor children living with them, subject to escape by proving “all the diligence of a good father of a family” to prevent damage.
Court’s Legal Analysis
The Court explained that Article 2176 establishes liability for acts or omissions causing damage when accompanied by fault or negligence (quasi-delict). Article 2180 makes the obligation demandable for acts of persons for whom one is responsible, including parents for minor children living with them. The parent’s liability under Article 2180 is vicarious in character but is premised on the same notion of fault or negligence and is therefore a presumptive, prima facie responsibility arising from the child’s harmful act. That presumption, however, is rebuttable: the parent may avoid liability by proving that he observed “all the diligence of a good father of a family” to prevent the damage. Because this standard is contextual rather than mathematically defined, the Court must examine attendant circumstances in each case to determine whether, by exercising such diligence, the parent could have prevented the harm.
Applying these principles, the Court found no basis to infer that the defendant father failed to exercise due care. The injurious act occurred at school while the daughter was where the father properly had the right to send her and where she was under the teacher’s supervision. The act itself was an innocent prank common among children; it did not indicate mischievous propensity or any characteristic that would have put the father on notice to take special precautions. Given those circumstances, the Court concluded the defendant had rebutted the presumption of parental negligence and that the damage was not one his exercise of parental authority could reasonably have prevented.
Holding and Disposition
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the complaint; no pronouncement as to costs. The majority concluded that, on the specific facts, the father was not legally liable under Article 2180 for his daughter’s prank that caused the injury.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-21484)
Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 146 Phil. 167, G.R. No. L-24101, decided September 30, 1970.
- Action for damages based on quasi-delict originally decided by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals; the case was certified to the Supreme Court because the facts were not in issue.
- The Supreme Court, through Justice Makalintal, rendered the present decision reversing the lower court and dismissing the complaint; there was a separate dissent by Justice Barredo. Justice Fernando took no part; Chief Justice Concepcion was on leave.
Parties and Representation
- Plaintiffs-Appellees: Maria Teresa Y. Cuadra, a minor represented by her father Ulises P. Cuadra, et al.
- Defendant-Appellant: Alfonso Monfort, father of Maria Teresa Monfort.
- The suit was brought by the parents of the injured minor on her behalf to recover damages for the injury.
Material Facts
- At the time of the incident, Maria Teresa Cuadra was 12 years old; Maria Teresa Monfort was 13 years old.
- Both were Grade Six classmates at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City.
- On July 9, 1962, their teacher assigned them, together with three other classmates, to weed the grass in the school premises.
- While engaged in this assignment, Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband, an ornamental object commonly worn by young girls over their hair.
- Monfort, jokingly saying aloud that she had found an earthworm and evidently to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at Cuadra.
- At that precise moment Cuadra turned to face her friend; the object struck Cuadra in the right eye.
- Immediately after the blow, Cuadra felt pain, rubbed the injured eye, and treated it with some powder.
- The following day, July 10, the injured eye became swollen and the child reported the incident to her parents, who then took her to a doctor.
- Cuadra underwent two surgical operations, first on July 20 and again on August 4, 1962, and stayed in the hospital for a total of twenty-three days.
- The parents expended the sum of P1,703.75 for all the medical treatment.
- Despite medical efforts and operations, Maria Teresa Cuadra completely lost the sight of her right eye.
Judgment Below and Monetary Awards Initially Granted
- The Court of First Instance ordered defendant Alfonso Monfort to pay:
- P1,703.00 as actual damages;
- P20,000.00 as moral damages;
- P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees;
- Plus the costs of the suit.
- The defendant appealed that judgment, leading to the present review.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, under the facts stated, a parent (the defendant) is liable for the wrongful act of his minor child which caused damage to another, under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code.
- The degree of diligence required by Article 2180 — i.e., what constitutes “all the diligence of a good father of a family” and how the parent may prove such diligence to rebut the presumption of liability.
Relevant Statutory Provisions Cited
- Article 2176 (quoted in the source):
- “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.”
- Article 2180 (quoted in the source):
- “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. xxx The re