MACARIO, CELSO, and AURELIA
TAMARGO v. CA, RTC JUDGE RUBIO, VICTOR and CLARA BUNDOC
1992
/ Feliciano / Petition for review of CA decision
In
1981, Sps. Rapisura filed a petition to
adopt 10 year old Adelberto Bundoc. A year later, on October 1982, Adelberto
shot Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries that led to her
death. The adoption petition was granted
on November 1982.
A civil
complaint for damages was filed against Sps. Bundoc [Adelberto’s
natural parents with whom he was living at the time of the incident] by
Jennifer’s adopting parent, Macario, as well as her natural parents, Sps.
Tamargo. Criminal information for
homicide through reckless imprudence was filed against Adelberto, but
he was acquitted and exempted from criminal liability since
he acted without discernment.
Sps. Bundoc claim that Sps. Rapisura [adopting parents] are the indispensable parties to the
action since parental authorities
shifted to the latter from the moment the petition for adoption was filed. However, Sps. Tamargo claim that parental authority of Sps. Bundoc had not
ceased nor been relinquished by the filing and granting of the petition
since Adelberto was then living with his
natural parents.
RTC dismissed Sps. Tamargo’s complaint and ruled that Sps. Bundoc were
not indispensable parties to the action. CA dismissed Sps. Tamargo’s petition, since they lost their right
to appeal.
PARENTAL LIABILITY UNDER
VICARIOUS LIABILITY OR “IMPUTED NEGLIGENCE”
- Law imposes civil liability upon father (or mother, if father is dead or incapacitated) for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them [NCC 2180]
- – A person is not only liable for torts he committed, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible
- Cangco cited to explain basis for doctrine of vicarious liability
- Legislature elected to limit extra-contractual liability to cases in which moral culpability can be directly imputed to persons to be charged; failure to exercise due care in one’s own acts, selecting, controlling agents or servants, controlling persons who, by reason of their status, occupy a position of dependency with respect to the person made liable for their conduct
- Civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious act, the parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty to closely supervise the child who is in their custody and control à Parental liability anchored upon parental authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction (willful negligence) in the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority
« SPS. BUNDOC
[NATURAL PARENTS] WERE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE ACTION
- Adelberto’s voluntary act of shooting Jennifer gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict against him [NCC 2176]
- Shooting occurred when parental authority was still lodged in Sps. Bundoc [natural parents], so they are the indispensable parties to the action since they had actual custody of Adelberto
- Court did not give credence to the following contentions / legal bases of Sps. Bundoc
- PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code), Article 36 – Decree of adoption shall be entered, which shall be effective as of the date the original petition was filed
- PD 603, Article 39 – An effect of adoption is the dissolution of the authority vested in the natural parents
- Court’s legal bases
- PD 603, Article 58 – Torts—Parents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code
- FC 221 – Parents […] exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company […]
« NO PRESUMPTION
OF PARENTAL DERELICTION ON THE PART OF THE ADOPTING PARENTS COULD HAVE ARISEN
SINCE ADELBERTO WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THEIR CONTROL AT THE TIME THE TORT WAS
COMMITTED
- PD 603, Article 58 provides that parental authority is provisionally vested in the adopting parents during the period of trial custody because the adopting parents are given actual custody of the child during such period
- In this case, trial custody period had NOT YET BEGUN or had NOT YET BEEN COMPLETED at the time of the shooting; in any case, actual custody was then with his NATURAL PARENTS
No comments:
Post a Comment