Parental Authority

General Provisions (Article 209-215) - 1 Hour

Espiritu vs. CA (242 SCRA 362)

Espiritu vs. CA
242 SCRA 362

Facts: Petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu and respondent Teresita Masauding first met
in Iligan City where Reynaldo was employed by the National Steel Corporation
and Teresita was employed as a nurse in a local hospital. Teresita left for Los
Angeles, California to work as a nurse. Reynaldo was sent by his employer, the
National Steel Corporation, to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania as its liaison officer and
Reynaldo and Teresita then began to maintain a common law relationship of
husband and wife. On 1986, their daughter, Rosalind Therese, was born. While
they were on a brief vacation in the Philippines, Reynaldo and Teresita got
married, and upon their return to the United States, their second child, a son, this
time, and given the name Reginald Vince, was born on 1988.

The relationship of the couple deteriorated until they decided to separate. Instead
of giving their marriage a second chance as allegedly pleaded by Reynaldo,
Teresita left Reynaldo and the children and went back to California. Reynaldo
brought his children home to the Philippines, but because his assignment in
Pittsburgh was not yet completed, he was sent back by his company to
Pittsburgh. He had to leave his children with his sister, Guillerma Layug and her
family.

Teresita, meanwhile, decided to return to the Philippines and filed the petition for
a writ of habeas corpus against herein two petitioners to gain custody over the
children, thus starting the whole proceedings now reaching this Court. The trial
court dismissed the petition for habeas corpus. It suspended Teresita's parental
authority over Rosalind and Reginald and declared Reynaldo to have sole
parental authority over them but with rights of visitation to be agreed upon by the
parties and to be approved by the Court.

Issue: Whether or not the petition for a writ of habeas corpus to gain custody
over the children be granted.

Ruling: SC dismissed the writ of habeas corpus petition by the mother and retain
the custody of the children to the father. The illicit or immoral activities of the
mother had already caused emotional disturbances, personality conflicts, and
exposure to conflicting moral values against the children.

The children are now both over seven years old. Their choice of the parent with
whom they prefer to stay is clear from the record. From all indications, Reynaldo
is a fit person. The children understand the unfortunate shortcomings of their
mother and have been affected in their emotional growth by her behavior.

Substitute and Special Parental Authority (Article 216-219) -3 Hours

Amadora vs. CA (160 SCRA 274)

Amadora vs. CA Case Digest
Amadora vs. CA
160 SCRA 274

Facts: Like any prospective graduate, Alfredo Amadora was looking forward to
the commencement exercises where he would ascend the stage and in the
presence of his relatives and friends receive his high school diploma. As it turned
out, though, fate would intervene and deny him that awaited experience. While
they were in the auditorium of their school, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, a
classmate, Pablito Damon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo, ending all his
expectations and his life as well.

Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Additionally, the
herein petitioners, as the victim's parents, filed a civil action for damages under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code against the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, its
rector the high school principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher,
together with Daffon and two other students, through their respective parents.
The complaint against the students was later dropped. After trial, the CIF of Cebu
held the remaining defendants liable to the plaintiffs. On appeal to the
respondent court, however, the decision was reversed and all the defendants
were completely absolved.

Issue: Whether or not teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades
shall be liable for the death of Alfredo Amadora.

Ruling: The Court has come to the conclusion that the provision in question (Art.
2180) should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic.

Following the canon of reddendo singular singuli, where the school is academic,
responsibility for the tort committed by the student will attach to the teacher in
charge of such student. This is the general rule. Reason: Old academic schools,
the heads just supervise the teachers who are the ones directly involved with the
students.

Where the school is for arts and trades, it is the head and only he who shall be
held liable as an exception to the general rule. Reason: Old schools of arts and
trades saw the masters or heads of the school personally and directly instructed
the apprentices.

Therefore, the heads are not liable. The teacher-in-charge is not also liable
because theres no showing that he was negligent in enforcing discipline against
the accused or that he waived observance of the rules and regulations of the
school, or condoned their non-observance. Also, the fact that he wasnt present
cant be considered against him because he wasnt required to report on that
day. Classes had already ceased.

Ylarde vs. Aquino (163 SCRA 697)

Facts: Private respondent Mariano Soriano was the principal of the Gabaldon
Primary School, a public educational institution located in Pangasinan, private
respondent Edgardo Aquino was a teacher therein. As part of work education,
private respondent Aquino ordered the pupils to help Banez in the burying of the
stones caused by the fittered remnants of World War II.

When the depth was right enough to accommodate the concrete block, private
respondent Aquino and his four pupils got out of the hole. Private respondent left
the children to level the loose soil around the open hole while he went to see
Banez to borrow some rope. Before leaving, private respondent Aquino allegedly
told the children "not to touch the stone."

After private respondent Aquino left, Alonso, Alcantara and Ylarde, playfully
jumped into the pit. The remaining Abaga jumped on top of the concrete block
causing it to slide down towards the opening. Alonso and Alcantara were able to
scramble out of the excavation on time but unfortunately for Ylarde, the concrete
block caught him, pinning him to the wall in a standing position. Ylarde sustained
injuries, three days later, he died. Ylarde's parents, petitioners in this case, filed a
suit for damages against both private respondents Aquino and Soriano.

Issue: Whether or not both private respondents can be held liable for the death
of Ylarde.

Ruling: SC close by categorically stating that a truly careful and cautious person
would have acted in all contrast to the way private respondent Aquino did.
Moreover, a teacher who stands in loco parentis to his pupils would have made
sure that the children are protected from all harm in his company. Were it not for
his gross negligence, the unfortunate incident would not have occurred and the
child Ylarde would probably be alive today, a grown- man of thirty-five. Due to his
failure to take the necessary precautions to avoid the hazard, Ylarde's parents
suffered great anguish all these years.


St. Marys Academy vs. Carpetanos (G.R. No. 143363, 6 February 2002)
St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos Case Digest
St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos
G.R. No. 143363 February 6, 2002

Facts: Defendant-appellant St. Marys Academy of Dipolog City conducted an
enrollment drive for the school year 1995-1996. A facet of the enrollment
campaign was the visitation of schools from where prospective enrollees were
studying. As a student of St. Marys Academy, Sherwin Carpitanos was part of
the campaigning group.

Accordingly, on the fateful day, Sherwin, along with other high school students
were riding in a Mitsubishi jeep owned by defendant Vivencio Villanueva on their
way to Larayan Elementary School, Dapitan City. The jeep was driven by James
Daniel II then 15 years old and a student of the same school. Allegedly, the latter
drove the jeep in a reckless manner and as a result the jeep turned turtle.
Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the injuries he sustained from the
accident. The parents of Sherwin filed a case against James Daniel II and his
parents, James Daniel Sr. and Guada Daniel, the vehicle owner, Vivencio
Villanueva and St. Marys Academy before the RTC of Dipolog City and claimed
for damages.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner St. Marys Academy is liable for damages for
the death of Sherwin Carpitanos.

Ruling: GRANTED and REMANDED to the RTC for determination of any liability
of the school. The Court held that for the school to be liable there must be a
finding that the act or omission considered as negligent was the proximate cause
of the injury caused because of negligence, must have causal connection to the
accident. There is no showing of such.

Hence, with the overwhelming evidence presented by petitioner and the
respondent Daniel spouses that the accident occurred because of the
detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep, it is not the school, but the
registered owner of the vehicle who shall be held responsible for damages for the
death of Sherwin Carpitanos.




Effect and Suspension/Termination of Parental Authority (Article 220-233) -2 Hours

Tamargo vs. CA
Tamargo vs. CA Case Digest
Tamargo vs. CA
209 SCRA 518

Facts: Domestic Adoption Act of 1998; Adelberto Bundoc, then a minor of 10
years of age, shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries which
resulted in her death. Accordingly, a civil complaint for damages was filed with
the RTC of Ilocos Sur by petitioner Macario Tamargo, Jennifer's adopting parent
and petitioner spouses Celso and Aurelia Tamargo, Jennifer's natural parents
against respondent spouses Victor and Clara Bundoc, Adelberto's natural
parents with whom he was living at the time of the tragic incident.

Prior to the incident, the spouses Sabas and Felisa Rapisura had filed a petition
to adopt the minor Adelberto Bundoc in Special Proceedings before the then CIF
of Ilocos Sur. This petition for adoption was granted that is, after Adelberto had
shot and killed Jennifer. Respondent spouses Bundoc, Adelberto's natural
parents, reciting the result of the foregoing petition for adoption, claimed that not
they, but rather the adopting parents, namely the spouses Sabas and Felisa
Rapisura, were indispensable parties to the action since parental authority had
shifted to the adopting parents from the moment the successful petition for
adoption was filed.

Petitioners in their reply contended that since Adelberto Bundoc was then
actually living with his natural parents, parental authority had not ceased nor
been relinquished by the mere filing and granting of a petition for adoption. The
trial court dismissed petitioners' complaint, ruling that respondent natural parents
of Adelberto indeed were not indispensable parties to the action.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioners, notwithstanding loss of their right to appeal, may still
file the instant petition.

Whether the Court may still take cognizance of the case even through petitioners'
appeal had been filed out of time.

Ruling: SC granted the petition. Retroactive affect may perhaps be given to the
granting of the petition for adoption where such is essential to permit the accrual
of some benefit or advantage in favor of the adopted child. In the instant case,
however, to hold that parental authority had been retroactively lodged in the
Rapisura spouses 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.



Libi vs. IAC (209 SCRA 518)

Facts: Deceased Julie Ann Gotiong, 18 years old, and deceased Wendell Libi,
between 18 to 19 years old, were sweethearts for two years prior to the incident.
After the girl decided to end the relationship finding the guy sadistic and
irresponsible, the boy incessantly pursued her and prayed that they be together
again this made the guy resort to threats. But, the girl hold steadfast to her
decision. In order to avoid the guy, the girl lived with her best friend. On the day
of the incident, the two were found shot dead with a Smith and Wesson revolver.
The parents of the girl instituted this case against the parents of the guy for
damages.

Issue: Whether or not the parents of the Wendell Libi is still liable for the death of
Julie Ann Gotiong.

Ruling: DENIED. The parents of the guy are held liable for not exercising due
diligence, diligentissimi patris familias, (Art. 2180). The father of the guy owns a
gun which he kept in a safety deposit box. The father and the mother each had a
key. The guy knew of it. The key must have been negligently left lying around or
he had free access to it, such as the bag of his mother. The said gun was
missing. The parents were also unable to explain the photograph of their son
holding a gun. The said photograph was dedicated to the girl.

Moreover, they were remiss in their duties as parents as not being able to know
that their son was a Constabulary Anti-Narcotics Unite (CANU) agent involved in
a dangerous work of as either a drug informer or drug user. The damages is
based on Art. 2180 of the Civil Code. Art. 101 of RPC doesnt apply since the guy
is or above 18 years old already.