You are on page 1of 4

Libi vs IAC (1992) 214 SCRA 16

Cresencio Libi and Amelia Yap Libi, petitioners, vs Hon. Intermediate Appelate Court,
Felipe Gotiong and Shirley Gotiong, respondents.
G.R. No. 70890
September 18, 1992
FACTS
Wendell Libi, son of petitioners, and Julie Ann Gotiong, the daughter of private respondent
spouses, were sweethearts until Julie broke up with Wendell upon finding out of his sadistic and
irresponsible character.
Wendell tried hard to reconcile with Julie Ann but when the latter refused, Wendell started making
threats. On that fateful day of January 14, 1978, Julie Ann and Wendell died from a single
gunshot wound each coming from the same Smith and Wesson revolver licensed in the name of
petitioner Cresencio Libi.
There being no eyewitnesses to the crime, petitioners and private respondents herein advanced
conflicting versions of the case. Private respondents claimed that with the use of the same gun,
Wendell took his own life after killing Julie Ann. On the other hand, the petitioners argued that an
unknown third party, whom Wendell may have displeased by reason of his work as a narcotic
informant, must have caused the death of Wendell and Julie Ann.
As a result of the death of Julie Ann, private respondents filed an action to recover damages
arising from the vicarious liability of the parents of Wendell (petitioners herein) under Article 2180
of the New Civil Code. After trial, the case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Likewise,
the counterclaim filed by the petitioners was dismissed for lack of merit.
On appeal lodged by private respondents, the respondent court set aside the dismissal of the
case and held petitioners liable under Art. 2180 of the NCC. Hence this case.
Herein petitioners seek for the reversal of judgment of requiring them to pay P30,000.00 for moral
damages, P10,000.00 for exemplary damages, P20,000.00 as attorney's fees and costs.
ISSUE: Are petitioners liable for vicarious liability under Art 2180 of the NCC?
RATIO:
The Libi spouses are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from
criminal offenses committed by their minor son under their legal authority or control, and who
lives in their company.
Petitioners Libi failed to prove that they had exercised due diligence of a good father of a
family over their son Wendell as shown by the fact that it was only when Wendell died that
petitioners came to know that their son Wendell was a CANU agent and that the gun of petitioner
Cresencio Bili was missing from their safety deposit box.
Petitioners are indeed liable under Art. 2180 of the NCC because it is still the duty of the
parents to know the activity of their children and, in this case, had the petitioners been diligent in
supervising the activities of Wendell and in keeping said gun from his reach, the death of Julie
and Wendell could have been prevented.
Petitioners are indeed liable under Art. 2180 of the NCC because it is still the duty of the
parents to know the activity of their children and, in this case, had the petitioners been diligent in
supervising the activities of Wendell and in keeping said gun from his reach, the death of Julie
and Wendell could have been prevented. The liability of the parents for damages caused by their
children imposed under Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligation arising from both
quasi delict and criminal offenses.
Tamargo vs CA (1992) 209 SCRA 518
FACTS:
In October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, a minor, shot and killed Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle.
Jennifer's natural parents filed civil complaints for damages with the RTC against Bundoc's
natural parents.
In December 1981, spouses Rapisura filed a petition to adopt Adelberto. The petition was granted
in November 1982.
Adelberto's parents, in their Answer, claimed that the spouses Rapisura were indispensable
parties to the action since parental authority had shifted to them from the moment the petition for
adoption was decreed. Spouses Tamargo contended that since Adelberto was then actually living
with his natural parents, parental authority had not ceased by mere filing and granting of the
petition for adoption. Trial court dismissed the spouses Tamargo's petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the spouses Rapisura are the indispensable parties to actions committed by
Adelberto.
RULING:
No. In Article 221 of the Family Code states that: "Parents and other persons exercising parental
authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of
their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to
the appropriate defences provided by law." In the case at bar, parental authority over Adelberto

was still lodged with the natural parents at the time the shooting incident happened. It follows that
the natural parents are the indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
SC held that parental authority had not been retroactively transferred to and vested in the
adopting parents, at the time the shooting happened. It do not consider that retroactive effect may
be given to the decree of the adoption so as to impose a liability upon the adopting parents
accruing at the time when adopting parents had no actual custody over the adopted child.
Retroactive affect may be essential if it permit the accrual of some benefit or advantage in favor
of the adopted child.
BA Finance Corp vs CA (1992) 215 SCRA 715
FACTS:
Augusto Yulo secured a loan from the petitioner in the amount of P591,003.59 as evidenced by a
promissory note he signed in his own behalf and as a representative of A&L Industries. Augusto
presented an alleged special power of attorney executed by his wife, Lily Yulo, who managed the
business and under whose name the said business was registered, purportedly authorized the
husband to procure the loan and sign the promissory note. 2months prior the procurement of the
loan, Augusto left Lily and their children which in turn abandoned their conjugal home. When the
obligation became due and demandable, Augusto failed to pay the same.
The petitioner prayed for the issuance of a writ of attachment alleging that said spouses were
guilty of fraud consisting of the execution of Deed of Assignment assigning the rights, titles and
interests over a construction contract executed by and between the spouses and A. Soriano
Corporation. The writ hereby prayed for was issued by the trial court and not contented with the
order, petitioner filed a motion for the examination of attachment debtor alleging that the
properties attached by the sheriff were not sufficient to secure the satisfaction of any judgment
which was likewise granted by the court.
ISSUE: WON A&L Industries can be held liable for the obligations contracted by the husband.
HELD:
A&L Industries is a single proprietorship, whose registered owner is Lily Yulo. The said
proprietorship was established during the marriage and assets were also acquired during the
same. Hence, it is presumed that the property forms part of the conjugal partnership of the
spouses and be held liable for the obligations contracted by the husband. However, for the
property to be liable, the obligation contracted by the husband must have redounded to the
benefit of the conjugal partnership. The obligation was contracted by Augusto for his own benefit
because at the time he incurred such obligation, he had already abandoned his family and left
their conjugal home. He likewise made it appear that he was duly authorized by his wife in behalf
of the company to procure such loan from the petitioner. Clearly, there must be the requisite
showing that some advantage accrued to the welfare of the spouses.
Thus, the Court ruled that petitioner cannot enforce the obligation contracted by Augusto against
his conjugal properties with Lily. Furthermore, the writ of attachment cannot be issued against the
said properties and that the petitioner is ordered to pay Lily actual damages amouting to
P660,000.00.

Philippine Rabbit Lines vs Phil American Forwarders (1975) 63 SCRA 231


FACTS:
Pangalangan and Philippine Rabbit alleged that on 24 November 1962, Fernando Pineda drove
recklessly the freight truck owned by his employer Philippine-American Forwarders along the
national highway at Sto. Tomas, Pampanga. It bumped the Philippine Rabbit bus driven by Felix
Pangalangan.
As a result of the accident, Pangalangan was injured and the damaged bus cannot be used for
seventy-nine (79) days, causing loss of income amounting to PhP8,665.81 to Philippine Rabbit.
Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan as plaintiffs, filed a case for damages against the defendants
Philippine-American Forwarders, its manager Archimedes Balingit and the driver Fernando
Pineda for damages and lost income sustained by Philippine Rabbit and the injuries sustained by
Pangalangan. Balingit stated in defense that he is not Pinedas employer and he asked for the
dismissal of the plaintiffs case as they had no cause of action against him.
The CFI Tarlac held only PAFI and Pineda liable for damages and injuries sustained and
dismissed Balingits liability. As a result, Philippine Rabbit and Pangalangan appealed the trial
courts decision to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether the trial court was right in dismissing the liability of PAFI
manager Archimedes Balingit to the damage sustained by them?
RATIO:

The New Civil Code states:


Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed by the
provisions of this Chapter.
Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts or
omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages
caused by the minor children who live in their company.
Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under
their authority and live in their company.
The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for
damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are
employed or on the occasion of their functions.
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers
acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any
business or industry.
The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the
damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case
what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable.
Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused
by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.
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.
The Supreme Court held that based on the allegations of the complaint of appellants Philippine
Rabbit and Pangalangan, Balingit has no liability based on tort or quasi-delict as manager of PhilAmerican Forwarders, Inc. in connection with the vehicular accident because he may be regarded
as an employee of Phil-American Forwarders, Inc. The Supreme Court interpreted the term
manager (directores, Spanish) is used in the sense of employer, as it may be gathered from the
articles context.
The Supreme Court disregarded the appellants argument raised on appeal that the doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil be used against PAFI, Archimedes Balingit and his wife. Since that
issue was not raised in the trial court below, it cannot be raised also on appeal. The case has to
be decided based on allegations stated in the pleadings (complaint) of the appellants, where it
was assumed that Balingit and his wife has a separate legal personality from that of PhilippineAmerican Forwarders, Inc.

Ramos vs Pepsi Cola Bottling Co of the Phils (1967) 19 SCRA 289


FACTS:
The car driven by Augusto Ramos (son of co-plaintiff Placido Ramos) collided with the truck of
PEPSI, driven by the driver and co-defendant Andres Bonifacio. As a result, the Ramoses sued
Bonifacio and Pepsi.
The trial court found Bonifacio negligent and declared that PEPSI-COLA had not sufficiently
proved that it exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.
PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio, solidarily, were ordered to pay the plaintiffs damages.
The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals. CA affirmed the decision of the trial court, but
absolved PEPSI-COLA from liability, finding that it sufficiently proved due diligence in the
selection of its driver Bonifacio. In its decision, CA stated the basis for its decision:
The uncontradicted testimony of Juan T. Anasco, personnel manager of defendant company, was
to the effect that defendant driver was first hired as a member of the bottle crop in the production
department; that when he was hired as a driver, 'we had size [sic] him by looking into his
background, asking him to submit clearances, previous experience, physical examination and
later on, he was sent to the pool house to take the usual driver's examination, consisting of: first,
theoretical examination and second, the practical driving examination, all of which he had
undergone, and that the defendant company was a member of the Safety Council. Our Supreme
Court had put it down as a rule that In order that the defendant may be considered as having
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family, he should not have been satisfied with the
mere possession of a professional driver's license; he should have carefully examined the
applicant for employment as to his qualifications, his experiences and record of service.
Defendant Company has taken all these steps.
ISSUE: Whether PEPSI-COLA exercised due diligence in the selection of its employee.
RATIO:
The appellants contended that Aasco, being PEPSI-COLA's employee, is a biased and an
interested witness. This is a question of fact, and the SC would not disturb the findings of CA.
It should perhaps be stated that in the instant case no question is raised as to due diligence in the
supervision by PEPSI-COLA of its driver. Article 2180 points out that the owners and managers of

an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees
in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their
functions. This responsibility shall cease when the employers prove that they observed the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage; hence, PEPSI-COLA shall be relieved
from liability (rebuttable presumption of negligence).
Merrit vs Government of the Philippine Islands (1916) 34 Phil 1186
FACTS:
Merrit, riding on a motorcycle at a speed of ten to twelve miles an hour, collided with an
ambulance of the General Hospital which turned suddenly and unexpectedly without having
sounded any whistle or horn. Merrit was severely injured. His condition had undergone
depreciation and his efficiency as a contractor was affected. The inquiry at once arises whether
the Government is legally-liable for the damages resulting therefrom even if the collision was due
to the negligence committed by an agent or employee of the government which is the chauffeur.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Government may be held in this case. NO.
RATIO:
That according to paragraph 5 of article 1903 of the Civil Code and the principle laid down in a
decision, among others, of the 18th of May, 1904, in a damage case, the responsibility of the
state is limited to that which it contracts through a special agent, duly empowered by a definite
order or commission to perform some act or charged with some definite purpose which gives rise
to the claim, and not where the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to a public official
charged with some administrative or technical office who can be held to the proper responsibility
in the manner laid down by the law of civil responsibility. Consequently, the trial court in not so
deciding and in sentencing the said entity to the payment of damages, caused by an official of the
second class referred to, has by erroneous interpretation infringed the provisions of articles 1902
and 1903 of the Civil Code. (Supreme Court of Spain, July 30, 1911; 122 Jur. Civ., 146.)
It is, therefore, evidence that the State (the Government of the Philippine Islands) is only liable,
according to the above quoted decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, for the acts of its agents,
officers and employees when they act as special agents within the meaning of paragraph 5 of
article 1903, supra, and that the chauffeur of the ambulance of the General Hospital was not such
an agent.

Palafox vs Province of Ilocos Norte 102 Phil 1186 (1958)

St. Francis High School vs CA (1991) 194 SCRA 341


Palisoc vs Brillantes (1971) 41 SCRA 548
Worcester vs Ocampo (1912) 22 Phil 42
Metro Manila Transit Corporation vs CA (1993) 223 SCRA 521
Singapore Airlines vs Pajo (1983) 122 SCRA 671
Bachelor Express vs CA (1990) 188 SCRA 216
Gotesco Investment Corporation vs Chatto (1992) 210 SCRA 18
Board of Liquidators vs Heirs of Kalaw (1967) 20 SCRA 987
PNR vs CA & Tupang (1985) 139 SCRA 87
Escueta vs Fandialan (1974) 61 SCRA 278
Picart vs Smith (1918) 37 Phil 809
LBC Air Cargo vs CA (1995) 241 SCRA 619
Tayag vs Alcantara (1980) 98 SCRA 723
Fernandez vs Manila Electric & Railroad Co (1909) 14 Phil 274
UE vs Jader (2000) 325 SCRA 804
Grand Union Supermarket vs Espino & CA (1979) 94 SCRA 953
Hermosisima vs CA (1960) 109 Phil 629
Tanjanco cs CA (1966) 18 SCRA 994
Velasco vs Meralco (1971) 40 SCRA 342
City of Manila vs Garcia (1967) 19 SCRA 413
Dr Jaime Cruz vs Agas (2015) GR No 204095