CRESENCIO LIBI and AMELIA YAP LIBI, petitioners, vs. HON.

INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, FELIPE GOTIONG

and SHIRLEY GOTIONG, respondents.

G.R. No. 70890. September 18, 1992.

Doctrine: In imposing sanctions for the so-called vicarious liability of petitioners, respondent court cites Fuellas
vs. Cadano, et al. which supposedly holds that “(t)he subsidiary liability of parents for damages caused by their
minor children imposed by Article 2180 of the New Civil Code covers obligations arising from both quasi-delicts
and criminal offenses,” followed by an extended quotation ostensibly from the same case explaining why under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code and Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code parents should assume subsidiary liability
for damages caused by their minor children. The court ruled that the liability of the parents for crimes or quasi-
delicts of their minor children is primary and not subsidiary; giving then the parents the right to invoke or be
absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damages.

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, they 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 of Wendell Libi liable for vicarious liability.

Ruling: Yes. 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, Wendell’s 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 mother’s bag where the key was kept. The spouses failed to observe and exercise the
required diligence of a good father to prevent such damage.