TORTS: Persons Liable; Vicarious Liability; Parents Cuadra v. Monfort G.R. L-24101 Sept.

30, 1970 FACTS: RULING: Maria Teresa Cuadra, 12, and Maria Teresa Monfort, NO. There is no meticulously calibrated measure applicable; 13, were classmates in Grade Six. Their teacher assigned and when the law simply refers to "all the diligence of a good them, together with three other classmates, to weed the father of the family to prevent damage," it implies a grass in the school premises. Maria Teresa Monfort found a consideration of the attendant circumstances in every plastic headband. Jokingly she said aloud that she had found individual case, to determine whether or not by the exercise an earthworm and, to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the of such diligence the damage could have been prevented. object at her. At that precise moment the latter turned There is nothing from which it may be inferred that the around to face her friend, and the object hit her right eye. defendant could have prevented the damage by the observance Smarting from the pain, she rubbed the injured part and of due care, or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of treated it with some powder. The next day, the eye became his parental authority in failing to foresee such damage, or the swollen and it was then that the girl related the incident to act which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at school, her parents, who thereupon took her to a doctor for where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he treatment. She underwent surgical operation twice, first on had the right to expect her to be, under the care and July 20 and again on August 4, 1962, and stayed in the supervision of the teacher. hospital for a total of twenty-three days, for all of which the The act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an parents spent the sum of P1,703.75. Despite the medical innocent prank not unusual among children at play and efforts, however, Maria Teresa Cuadra completely lost the which no parent, however careful, would have any special sight of her right eye. reason to anticipate much less guard against. Nor did it In the civil suit subsequently instituted by the reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the parents in behalf of their minor daughter against Alfonso child's character which would reflect unfavorably on her Monfort, Maria Teresa Monfort's father, the defendant was upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed to ordered to pay P1,703.00 as actual damages; P20,000.00 as her parents. moral damages; and P2,000.00 as attorney's fees, plus the The victim, no doubt, deserves no little commiseration and costs of the suit. sympathy for the tragedy that befell her. But if the defendant ISSUE: Whether or not the parents are liable for the acts of is at all obligated to compensate her suffering, the obligation their minor child when the act or omission of the child is has no legal sanction enforceable in court, but only the moral committed in the absence of the parents. compulsion of good conscience. (Ritz G.) TORTS: Persons Liable; Teachers and Heads of Institutions MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS AND QUISUMBING L-14342 May 30, 1960 FACTS: Plaintiff-appellant Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. is the son of his co-plaintiff-appellants Ana Pineda and Manuel L. Quisumbing, while Augusto Mercado is the son of defendantappellee Ciriaco L. Mercado, Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. and Augusto Mercado were classmates in the Lourdes Catholic School on Kanlaon, Quezon City. A "pitogo", which figures prominently in this case, may be described as an empty nutshell used by children as a piggy bank. On February 22, 1956, Augusto Mercado and Manuel Quisumbing, Jr. quarrelled over a "pitogo". As a result, Augusto wounded Manuel, Jr. on the right cheek with a piece of razor. ISSUES 1. Whether or not the teacher or head of the school should be held responsible instead of the of the father since the incident of the inflicting of the wound on respondent occurred in a Catholic School (during recess time) 2. Whether or not the moral damages fixed at P2,000 are excessive. RULING: 1. NO. The last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code, upon which petitioner rests his claim that the school where his son was studying should be made liable, is as follows: ART. 2180. xxx 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. xxx It would be seem that the clause "so long as they remain in their custody," contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control, direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those of the parents. In these circumstances the control or influence over the conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the father and mother to the teacher; and so would the responsibility for the torts of the pupil. Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar; the pupils appear to go to school during school hours and go back to their homes with their parents after school is over. The situation contemplated in the last paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does paragraph 2 of said article, which makes father or mother responsible for the damages caused by their minor children. 2. YES. It is possible that the Court of Appeals may have considered Augusto Mercado responsible for or guilty, of a quasi-delict causing physical injuries, within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 2219. Even if we assume that said court considered Mercado guilty of a quasi-delict when it imposed the moral damages, yet the facts found by said court indicate that Augusto's resentment, which motivated the assault, was occasioned by the fact that Manuel, Jr. had tried to intervene in or interfere with the attempt of Mercado to get "his pitogo from Renato." It is, therefore, apparent that the proximate cause of the injury caused to Quisumbing was Quisumbing's own fault or negligence for having interfered with Mercado while trying to get the pitogo from another boy. (Art. 2179, Civil Code.) After considering all the facts as found by the Court of Appeals, we find that none of the cases mentioned in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which authorizes the grant of moral damages, was shown to have existed. Consequently, the grant of moral damages is not justified. (Ritz G.)