G.R. No. L-24101 September 30, 1970
MARIA TERESA Y. CUADRA, minor represented by her father ULISES P. CUADRA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. ALFONSO MONFORT, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On July 9, 1962, Maria Teresa Cuadra (12 years old) and Maria Teresa Monfort (13 years old), classmates in Grade Six at Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City, were assigned with three other classmates to weed grass on the school premises. Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband and, as a joke, said aloud she had found an earthworm and tossed it at Maria Teresa Cuadra to frighten her. At that moment, Cuadra turned around, and the object hit her right eye. The next day, the eye became swollen, and her parents took her to a doctor. She underwent two surgical operations and was hospitalized for 23 days, incurring medical expenses of P1,703.75. Despite treatment, she completely lost the sight of her right eye. The parents, on behalf of their minor daughter, filed a civil suit for damages based on quasi-delict against Alfonso Monfort, the father of Maria Teresa Monfort. The Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to pay P1,703.00 as actual damages, P20,000.00 as moral damages, and P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees, plus costs. The defendant appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-appellant, Alfonso Monfort, is liable for damages caused by the act of his minor child under Articles 2176 and 2180 of the Civil Code, and whether he successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence by proving he observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the complaint. The Court held that the basis of liability under Article 2176 is fault or negligence, and under Article 2180, a parent is vicariously liable for damages caused by minor children living in their company, unless they prove they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. In this case, the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of negligence. His daughter was at school, where she was under the care and supervision of the teacher, and the act was an innocent prank not unusual among children, which no parent, however careful, would have special reason to anticipate or guard against. The act did not reveal any mischievous propensity or character trait reflecting unfavorably on her upbringing. Therefore, the defendant had no legal obligation to pay damages, though moral compulsion may exist. The complaint was dismissed without costs.
Separate Opinion:
Justice Barredo dissented, arguing that the act of the appellant’s daughter constituted fault, as a 13-year-old should have known the likely consequences of her actions. He also believed that, absent evidence the appellant had properly advised his daughter against such jokes, liability under Article 2180 could attach.