FACTS:

Wendell Libi shot his lover Julie Ann Giotong, both minors, before he turned the firearm on
himself. As a result, the parents of Julie Ann filed against Wendell's parents to recover
damages. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of
evidence. CA reversed the decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the parents of Wendell Libi liable for vicarious liability.
RULING:
Yes. The subsidiary liability of parents for damages cause by their minor children is imposed
by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code, which covers obligations arising from both quasidelicts and criminal offenses. The parents' liability as being primary and not subsidiary and
liability shall ceased if the parents can prove that they observe all the diligence of a good
father to prevent damage.
In this case, the parents had not exercised due diligence in supervising the activities of their
son. It was only at the time of Wendell's death that they allegedly discovered that he was
drug informant of CANU and that the gun used in the shooting incident was missing from the
safety deposit box. Having been grossly negligent in preventing Wendell from having access
to said gun, the Libis are subsidiary liable for the natural consequence of the criminal act of
said minor who was living in their company.
Categories: G.R. No. 70890, Libi vs Intermediate Appellate Court, Philippine Civil Code

Libi vs IAC
Libi vs. IAC
FACTS:
Julie Ann Gotiong and Wendell Libi were a sweetheart until the former broke up
with the latter after she found out the Wendell was irresponsible and sadistic.
Wendell wanted reconciliation but was not granted by Julie so it prompted him to
resort to threats. One day, there were found dead from a single gunshot wound
each coming from the same gun. The parents of Julie herein private
respondents filed a civil case against the parents of Wendell to recover
damages. Trial court dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence but
was set aside by CA.
ISSUE: WON the parents should be held liable for such damages.
HELD:
The subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their minor children
imposed under Art 2180 of the Civil Code and Art. 101 of Revised Penal Code

covered obligations arising from both quasi-delicts and criminal offenses. The
court held that the civil liability of the parents for quasi-delict of their minor
children is primary and not subsidiary and that responsibility shall cease when
the persons can prove that they observe all the diligence of a good father of a
family to prevent damage. However, Wendells mother testified that her
husband owns a gun which he kept in a safety deposit box inside a drawer in
their bedroom. Each of the spouses had their own key. She likewise admitted
that during the incident, the gun was no longer in the safety deposit box.
Wendell could not have gotten hold of the gun unless the key was left
negligently lying around and that he has free access of the mothers bag where
the key was kept. The spouses failed to observe and exercise the required
diligence of a good father to prevent such damage.