Tamargo v. CA

 Tamargo v. CA, 

209 SCRA 518 

1992

DOCTRINE: The basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship

existing between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom, the law

presumes, the parents exercise supervision and control. No retroactive effect may be

given to the decree of adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents

accruing at a time when the adopting parents had no actual or physical custody over the

adopted child.

FACTS:

On October 20, 1982, Adelberto, 10 years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an

air rifle which resulted in her death. Accordingly, petitioner Macario Tamargo, Jennifer’s

adopting parent, and petitioner spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer’s natural

parents, filed a civil complaint for damages against respondent spouses Victor and Clara

Bundoc, Adelberto’s natural parents with whom he was living with at the time of the

incident. Prior to the incident, or on December 10, 1981, spouses Sabas and Felisa

Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto. The petition was granted on November 18,

1982.

In their Answer, respondent spouses Bundoc claimed that spouses Rapisura, the

adopting parents, were the indispensable parties to the action since parental authority

had shifted to the adopting parents from the time the petition for adoption was filed. In

their Reply, petitioners contended that since Adelberto was then actually living with his

natural parents, parental authority had not ceased by the mere filing and granting of a

petition for adoption.

The trial court dismissed petitioner’s complaint, ruling that respondent spouses

were not indispensable parties to the action. Petitioners then filed a motion for

reconsideration followed by a supplemental motion for reconsideration. For failure to

comply with the requirement that notice of the motion shall be given to all parties

concerned at least three (3) days before the hearing of said motion; and that said notice

shall state the time and place of hearing, both motions were denied by the trial court. The

trial court likewise dismissed the notice of appeal for being filed beyond the 15-day

reglementary period. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for mandamus and

certiorari, ruling that petitioners had lost their right to appeal. Hence, petitioners filed this

present petition for review.

ISSUES:

May the effects of adoption, insofar as parental authority is concerned, be given

retroactive effect so as to make the adopting parents the indispensable parties in a

damage case filed against their adopted child for acts committed by the latter when actual

custody was yet lodged with the biological parents?

HELD:

No. Adelberto Bundoc's voluntary act of shooting Jennifer Tamargo gave rise to a

cause of action on quasi-delict against him. Upon the other hand, Article 2180 of the Civil

Code imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the

mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. The

civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor children living with them is

based upon the parental authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The law

assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious act,

the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty closely to

supervise the child who is in their custody and control.

In the case at bar, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto occurred when parental

authority was still lodged in respondent spouses, the natural parents of Adelberto. It would

thus follow that the natural parents, who had then actual custody of Adelberto, are the

indispensable parties to the action for damages.

Furthermore, the contention of the respondent spouses – that because a decree

of adoption was issued by the adoption court in favor of spouses Rapisura, parental

authority was vested in the latter as adopting parents as of the time of the filing the petition

for adoption that is, before Adelberto had shot Jennifer – is untenable. Under the Civil

Code, the basis of parental liability for the torts of a minor child is the relationship existing

between the parents and the minor child living with them and over whom, the law

presumes, the parents exercise supervision and control.

Moreover, retroactive effect may not be given to the decree of adoption so as to

impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when the adopting parents

had no actual or physical custody over the adopted child. To hold that parental authority

had been retroactively lodged in spouses Rapisura so as to burden them with liability for

a tortious act that they could not have foreseen and which they could not have prevented

would be unfair and unconscionable.