Libi v. IAC

  Libi v. IAC, 

214 SCRA 16 

1992

DOCTRINE: The parents should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from

criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control,

or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the diligence

of a good father of a family to prevent such damages

FACTS:

The petitioners in this case are the parents of Wendell Libi who seeks the reversal of the

judgment of the respondent court sentencing the petitioners jointly and solidarily liable to

respondent spouses Gotiong.

Respondent spouses Gotiong are the parents of Julie Ann Gotiong who died when she

was an 18-year-old first year commerce student at the University of San Carlos, Cebu

City; while the petitioners are the parents of Wendell Libi, then a minor between 18 and

19 years of age living with his parents, and who also died in the same event.

For more than 2 years before their deaths, Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were

sweethearts until Julie Ann broke up her relationship with Wendell after she found him to

be sadistic and irresponsible. During the first and second weeks after the breakup,

Wendell kept pestering Julie Ann for reconciliation, but the latter persisted in her refusal,

prompting Wendell to resort to threats against her. In order to avoid him, Julie Ann stayed

in the house of her best friend, Malou Alfonso.

On January 14, 1979, Julie Ann and Wendell died, each from a single gunshot wound

inflicted with the same firearm, a Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of

petitioner Cresencio Libi, which was recovered from the scene of the crime inside the

residence of the Spouses Gotiong.

Due to the absence of an eyewitness surrounding the death of both minors, their parents

posited their respective theories drawn from their interpretation of circumstantial

evidence, available reports, documents and evidence of physical facts.

Private respondents, bereaved over the death of their daughter, submitted that Wendell

caused her death by shooting her with the aforesaid firearm and, thereafter, turning the

gun on himself to commit suicide. On the other hand, petitioners, puzzled and likewise

distressed over the death of their son, rejected the imputation and contended that an

unknown third party, whom Wendell may have displeased or antagonized by reason of

his work as a narcotics informer of the Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unit (CANU), must

have caused Wendell's death and then shot Julie Ann to eliminate any witness and

thereby avoid identification.

As a result of the tragedy, the parents of Julie Ann filed a civil case in the Court of First

Instance of Cebu against the parents of Wendell to recover damages arising from the

latter’s vicarious liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. However, judgment was

rendered dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint for insufficiency of evidence.

In the proceedings before the trial court, Dr. Cerna, Police Medico-Legal Officer of Cebu,

submitted his findings and opinions on some postulates for determining whether or not

the gunshot wound was inflicted on Wendell Libi by his own suicidal act. However, undue

emphasis was placed by the lower court on the absence of gunpowder or tattooing

around the wound at the point of entry of the bullet.

However, as pointed out by private respondents, the body of deceased Wendell Libi must

have been washed at the funeral parlor, considering the hasty interment thereof a little

after 8 hours from the occurrence wherein he died. Dr. Cerna himself could not

categorically state that the body of Wendell Libi was left untouched at the funeral parlor

before he was able to conduct his autopsy. It will also be noted that Dr. Cerna was

negligent in not conducting a paraffin test on Wendell Libi, hence possible evidence of

gunpowder residue on Wendell's hands was forever lost when Wendell was hastily buried.

Petitioners' defense that they had exercised the due diligence of a good father of a

family, hence they should not be civilly liable for the crime committed by their minor son,

is not borne out by the evidence on record either.

Petitioner Amelita Yap Libi, mother of Wendell, testified that her husband, Cresencio Libi,

owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer in their bedroom. Each

of these petitioners holds a key to the safety deposit box and Amelita's key is always in

her bag, all of which facts were known to Wendell. They have never seen their son

Wendell taking or using the gun. She admitted, however, that on the night of the incident,

the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box

On appeal to respondent court, said judgment of the lower court dismissing the complaint

of therein plaintiffs-appellants was set aside and another judgment was rendered against

defendants-appellees.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Article 2180 of the Civil Code was correctly interpreted by

respondent court to make petitioners liable for vicarious liability

HELD:

Yes. The law provides that parents are and should be held primarily liable for the civil

liability arising from criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal

authority or control, or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted

with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages.

Accordingly, such parental liability is primary and not subsidiary, the last paragraph of

Article 2180 provides 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 damages.

Having been grossly negligent in preventing Wendell Libi from having access to said gun

which was allegedly kept in a safety deposit box, His parents are subsidiarily liable for the

natural consequence of the criminal act of said minor Wendell who was living in their

company.

In this case, the minor son Wendell of herein defendants-appellees, somehow got hold of

the key to the drawer where said gun was kept under lock without defendant-spouses

ever knowing that said gun had been missing from that safety box since 1978 when

Wendell had a picture taken wherein he proudly displayed said gun and dedicated this

picture to his sweetheart, Julie Ann Gotiong; also since then, Wendell was said to have

kept said gun in his car, in keeping up with his supposed role of a CANU agent.

Therefore, petitioners should be held liable for the civil liability based on what appears

from all indications was a crime committed by their minor son. However, the civil liability

of parents for quasi-delicts of their minor children, as contemplated in Article 2180 of the

Civil Code, is primary and not subsidiary.