View full case

LIBI v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

FACTS:

Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi, former sweethearts, had a falling out which led to Wendell threatening Julie Ann. Julie Ann sought refuge in her best friend's house. On January 14, 1979, both Julie Ann and Wendell died from gunshot wounds inflicted by a revolver licensed in the name of Cresencio Libi, Wendell's father. The parents of Julie Ann filed a case against the parents of Wendell to recover damages. The trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, but on appeal, the decision was reversed and judgment was rendered against the petitioners. Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

An autopsy was conducted on the body of Wendell and it was found that there was no burning or singeing of the hair or extensive laceration on the gunshot wound of entrance, indicating that it was not a contact or near-contact fire. No paraffin test was conducted on Wendell to check for the presence of gunpowder residue on his hands. The body of Wendell was hastily buried, possibly destroying further evidence. The Medico-Legal Division of the National Bureau of Investigation prepared a sketch showing only one gunshot wound of entrance located at the right temple of Wendell. The necropsy report also noted the absence of evidence of contact or close-contact fire.

Witnesses gave conflicting testimonies, with some claiming that Wendell was the assailant while others saw a shadow of a man at the gate of the Gotiong house. The defense argued that another man was responsible for the crime, but failed to present any evidence or suspect supporting this theory. The evidence, including testimonial, documentary, and pictorial, strongly pointed to Wendell as the assailant, with revenge being the motive for the crime. The defense's argument that they should not be held civilly liable for the crime committed by their minor son was refuted by the evidence presented.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether petitioners can be held civilly liable for the death of Julie Ann Gotiong caused by their minor son Wendell Libi.

  2. Whether petitioners exercised the necessary diligence of a good father of a family to prevent Wendell from accessing the gun used in the crime.

  3. Is the liability of parents for the crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children subsidiary or primary in nature?

  4. Can parents invoke the defense of acting with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages if their liability is categorized as subsidiary?

  5. Whether the liability for damages arising from felonies or quasi-delicts committed by a minor is the responsibility of the parents or those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender.

  6. Whether the petitioners failed to exercise due diligence in preventing the damages caused by the minor offender.

RULING:

  1. Yes, petitioners can be held civilly liable for the death of Julie Ann Gotiong caused by their minor son Wendell Libi. Pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by their minor children who live in their company. Petitioners were negligent in supervising the activities of their son and in not preventing him from accessing the gun used in the crime.

  2. No, petitioners did not exercise the necessary diligence of a good father of a family to prevent Wendell from accessing the gun used in the crime. The evidence shows that the gun was not properly secured in a safety deposit box, as one of the keys to the box was negligently left lying around or accessible to Wendell. Petitioners failed to diligently supervise and monitor their son's activities, and their lack of awareness about his involvement in dangerous work and possession of a firearm demonstrates their failure in exercising proper diligence.

  3. The civil liability of parents for the crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is primary in nature and not subsidiary. They are solidarily liable with the minor for the damages caused. The last paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code provides that the liability shall cease if the parents can prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.

  4. If the liability of parents for the crimes or quasi-delicts of their minor children is considered primary, the defense of acting with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages is valid and substantial. However, if their liability is treated as subsidiary, this defense cannot be invoked or absolve them of civil liability.

  5. The liability for damages arising from felonies committed by a minor is the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. For civil liability arising from quasi-delicts committed by minors, the same rules shall apply in accordance with Articles 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code, as modified.

  6. The court affirmed the judgment holding the petitioners liable for damages arising from the felonies or quasi-delicts committed by the minor offender, as it found that the petitioners failed to exercise the requisite diligence to prevent such damages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The parents can be held civilly liable for the damages caused by their minor children under Article 2180 of the Civil Code.

  • The diligence of a good father of a family in a parent and child relationship requires instruction and supervision of the child's activities.

  • The parents must exercise diligence in knowing the activities of their children who may be engaged in dangerous activities.

  • The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses.

  • The subsidiary liability of parents for the criminal acts of their minor children with discernment is determined under Article 2180 of the Civil Code and Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The civil liability of parents for the quasi-delicts of their minor children is primary and not subsidiary. They are solidarily liable with the minor and can invoke the defense of observing all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. (Article 2180, Civil Code)

  • The civil liability of parents for the crimes committed by their minor children is also primary and not subsidiary. They can invoke the defense of lack of fault or negligence on their part, i.e. the exercise of the diligence of a good father of a family. (Article 101, Revised Penal Code)

  • The liability of parents for both quasi-delicts and crimes is direct and primary, while the liability of the minor is only secondary and subject to the defense of lack of fault or negligence. (Article 2182, Civil Code; third paragraph of Article 101, Revised Penal Code)

  • Parents are primarily liable for the civil liability arising from the criminal offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control, or who live in their company.

  • To hold that the civil liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code would apply only to quasi-delicts and not to criminal offenses would result in the absurdity that in an act involving mere negligence the parents would be liable but not where the damage is caused with criminal intent.

  • The Revised Penal Code provides for subsidiary liability only for specific persons causing damages under certain circumstances.

  • The enforcement of the liability against the parents shall be against the father, and in case of his death or incapacity, the mother.

  • The liability for damages arising from felonies or quasi-delicts committed by a minor is the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code)

  • The responsibility of the parents or those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender may also be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code)

  • The liability for damages arising from quasi-delicts committed by minors shall be governed by Articles 2180 and 2182 of the Civil Code, as modified. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code)

  • The person having custody and care of a minor shall be answerable for the damages caused by the minor, unless it is proven that they exercised the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. (Article 2180 of the Civil Code)