Cuadra v. Monfort,
35 SCRA 160
1970
DOCTRINE:
The underlying basis of the liability imposed by Article 2176 is the fault or
negligence accompanying the act or the omission, there being no willfulness or intent to
cause damage thereby. When the act or omission is that of one person for whom
another is responsible, the latter then becomes himself liable under Article 2180, in the
different cases enumerated therein, such as that of the father or the mother under the
circumstances above quoted. The basis of this vicarious, although primary, liability is, as
in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is presumed from that which accompanied the
causative act or omission. The presumption is merely prima facie and may therefore be
rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last
paragraph of Article 2180, which states "that the responsibility treated of in this Article
shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage."
FACTS:
Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfort, 13, were classmates in
Grade Six at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City. While tasked to weed the
grass in the school premises, Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband. Jokingly
she said aloud that she had found an earthworm and, evidently to frighten the Cuadra
girl, tossed the object at her. At that precise moment the latter turned around to face her
friend, and the object hit her right eye. Smarting from the pain, she rubbed the injured
part and treated it with some powder. The next day, July 10, the eye became swollen
and it was then that the girl related the incident to her parents, who thereupon took her
to a doctor for treatment. She underwent surgical operation twice, first on July 20 and
again on August 4, 1962, and stayed in the hospital for a total of twenty-three days, for
all of which the parents spent the sum of P1,703.75. Despite the medical efforts,
however, Maria Teresa Cuadra completely lost the sight of her right eye.
ISSUES:
Whether Alfonso Monfort can be held liable for damages for the act of his minor
child
HELD:
No, Alfonso Monfort, as parent, is not liable for damages.
When the act or omission is that of one person for whom another is responsible,
the latter then becomes himself liable under Article 2180, in the different cases
enumerated therein, such as that of the father or the mother. The basis of this vicarious,
although primary, liability is, as in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is presumed
from that which accompanied the causative act or omission. The presumption is
merely prima facie and may therefore be rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference
that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180, which states "that the
responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage."
In the present case there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the
defendant 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. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment