Case Summary (G.R. No. 85044)
Petitioners and Respondents
• Petitioners in Civil Case No. 3457-V: Macario Tamargo (adopting parent of victim) and Celso and Aurelia Tamargo (natural parents of victim)
• Respondents in Civil Case No. 3457-V: Victor and Clara Bundoc (natural parents of minor tortfeasor)
• Criminal Case No. 1722-V: Adelberto Bundoc (acquitted for lack of discernment)
Key Dates
• December 10, 1981: Adoption petition for Adelberto filed by Rapisura spouses
• October 20, 1982: Adelberto shot Jennifer, causing her death
• November 18, 1982: Decree of adoption granted (effective from filing date)
• December 3, 1987: Trial court dismissed petitioners’ damages complaint
• December 7, 1987: Petitioners received decision
• December 14, 1987: Motion for reconsideration filed
• January 15, 1988: Supplemental motion filed
• April 18, 1988: Motions denied for procedural defects
• April 28, 1988: Notice of appeal filed (alleged late)
• June 6, 1988: Trial court dismissed notice of appeal as untimely
• September 6, 1988: Court of Appeals denied relief for loss of right to appeal
• June 3, 1992: Supreme Court decision (1987 Constitution applicable)
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process and substantial justice)
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Articles 2176, 2180) on quasi-delict and parental liability
• Family Code of the Philippines (Article 221) on parental authority and civil liability
• Child and Youth Welfare Code (P.D. No. 603) on adoption (Articles 35, 36, 39, 58)
Procedural History at Trial Court
Petitioners filed a damages suit against Victor and Clara Bundoc under Article 2180, Civil Code (parental liability for minors living with them). The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground that natural parents were not indispensable parties given the subsequent adoption decree. Motions for reconsideration were denied for failing to comply with notice requirements under Rules 15 and 41. The trial court later dismissed the notice of appeal as filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.
Issues on Petition for Review
- Whether petitioners may invoke the Court’s cognizance despite losing the right to appeal.
- Whether the effects of adoption may be given retroactive effect to shift parental authority—and thus civil liability—from natural to adopting parents as of the petition’s filing date.
Waiver of Technical Defects in Appeal
Invoking the 1987 Constitution’s due-process ethos and the Court’s power to relax procedural rules to prevent injustice, the Supreme Court treated the notice of appeal and motions for reconsideration as seasonably filed. It held that rigid enforcement of technical rules should not bar appellate review when substantive justice is at stake.
Liability for Quasi-Delict and Parental Responsibility
Under Article 2176, Civil Code, a quasi-delict arises when fault or negligence causes damage. Article 2180 expands liability to parents for torts of minor children living in their company, subject to proof of due diligence. Family Code Article 221 carries forward the same principle. Parental liability is a form of vicarious liability grounded in the presumption of parental dereliction in supervising and controlling the child.
Doctrine of Vicarious Liability
The Court reaffirmed that civil liability for minors’ torts is a legal fiction enabling the imposition of responsibility on parents who occupy a position of dependency over the child. Imposition of such liability presumes failure to exercise proper parental control, rebuttable only by evidence of all the diligence of a good parent.
Effect of Adoption on Parental Authority
Respondents argued that, by virtue of Child and Youth Welfare Code Article 36, parental authority over Adelberto vested in Rapisura spouses from the date the adoption petition was filed, thus absolving natural parents of liability. Article 39 confirms dissolution of natural‐parent authority upon adoption. The Court rejected retroactive application of these provisions to events occurring before adopting parents had physical custody.
Trial Custody Requirement and Actual Custody
Article 35 provides that during the supervised six-month trial custody period, parental authority vests in adopting parents precisely because they assume actual custody. Since Adelberto was living with his natural parents at the
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 85044)
Facts of the Incident
- On October 20, 1982, 10-year-old Adelberto Bundoc shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle, inflicting injuries that resulted in her death.
- Jennifer was under the care of her adopting parent, petitioner Macario Tamargo, as well as her natural parents, spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo.
- Adelberto Bundoc was living with his natural parents, respondents Victor and Clara Bundoc, at the time of the shooting.
- A criminal information for homicide through reckless imprudence (Criminal Case No. 1722-V) was filed against Adelberto; he was acquitted on the ground of lack of discernment.
Adoption Proceedings
- On December 10, 1981, spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura filed a petition for the adoption of Adelberto in Special Proceedings No. 0373-T before the CFI of Ilocos Sur.
- The adoption petition was granted on November 18, 1982—after the shooting—but made effective retroactively to the date of filing (December 10, 1981).
- Respondent Bundoc spouses, in their Answer to the civil complaint, argued that parental authority had shifted to the adopting parents from the moment the adoption petition was filed.
Civil Complaint and Trial Court Proceedings
- Petitioners filed Civil Case No. 3457-V in the RTC, Branch 20, Vigan, seeking damages against Victor and Clara Bundoc for the fatal shooting by their minor son.
- Respondent Bundoc spouses claimed they were no longer indispensable parties due to the prior adoption decree in favor of the Rapisuras.
- Petitioners countered that Adelberto was still living with his natural parents when the tort occurred, so parental authority remained with the Bundocs.
- On December 3, 1987, the RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of indispensable parties—finding the Bundoc spouses no longer liable.
Motions for Reconsideration and Appeal
- Petitioners received the RTC decision on December 7, 1987, and filed a motion for reconsideration on December 14, 1987, and a supplemental motion on January 15, 1988.
- Both motions were denied on Ap