Facts:
In
October 1982, Adelberto Bundoc, then a minor of 10 years of age, shot Jennifer
Tamargo with an air rifle causing injuries that resulted in her death. Accordingly, the parents of Jennifer filed a complaint for damages
against the natural parents of Adelberto with whom he was living the time of
the tragic incident.
Prior
to the incident, in December 1981, Spouses Rapisura filed a petition to
adopt Adelberto. The petition was granted in November 1982 after the incident.
In
their Answer, Spouses Bundoc, Adelberto's natural parents, claimed that not
they, but rather the adopting parents, Spouses 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. Spouses
Bundoc relied on Arts. 36 and 39 of the Child and Youth Welfare
Code which reads as follows:
Art. 36. Decree of Adoption. —
If, after considering the report of the Department of Social Welfare or duly
licensed child placement agency and the evidence submitted before it, the court
is satisfied that the petitioner is qualified to maintain, care for, and
educate the child, that the trial custody period has been completed, and that
the best interests of the child will be promoted by the adoption, a
decree of adoption shall be entered, which shall be effective as of the date
the original petition was filed. The decree shall state the name by
which the child is thenceforth to be known.
Art. 39. Effect of Adoption. —
The adoption shall:
xxx
(2) Dissolve the authority vested in
the natural parents, except where the adopter is the spouse of the
surviving natural parent;
Spouses
Tamargo filed their Reply contending that since Adelberto 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 ruled in favor of Spouses Bundoc.
Issue:
Whether or not the effects of
adoption, insofar as parental authority is concerned may be given retroactive
effect so as to make the adopting parents the indispensable parties in a damage
case filed against their adopted child, for acts committed by the latter, when
actual custody was yet lodged with the biological parents.
Held:
It is not disputed that Adelberto Bundoc's voluntary act of shooting
Jennifer Tamargo with an air rifle gave rise to a cause of action on quasi-delict against
him. As Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:
Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict . . .
Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father
and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may
be caused by a minor child who lives with them. Article 2180
of the Civil Code reads:
The obligation imposed by article 2176
is demandable not only for one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of
persons for whom one is responsible.
The father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor
children who live in their company.
xxx xxx xxx
The responsibility treated of in this
Article shall cease when the person herein mentioned prove that they observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
This principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently
designated as vicarious liability, or the doctrine of "imputed
negligence" under Anglo-American tort law, where a person is not only
liable for torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others
with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus,
parental liability is made a natural or logical consequence of the duties and
responsibilities of parents — their parental authority — which includes the
instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child.
The civil liability imposed upon parents for the torts of their minor
children living with them, may be seen to be based upon the parental authority
vested by the Civil Code upon such parents. The civil law assumes that when an
unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortious acts, the
parents were negligent in the performance of their legal and natural duty
closely to supervise the child who is in their custody and control. Parental
liability is, in other words, anchored upon parental authority coupled with
presumed parental dereliction in the discharge of the duties accompanying such
authority. The parental dereliction is, of course, only presumed and the
presumption can be overtuned under Article 2180 of the Civil Code by proof that
the parents had exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to
prevent the damage.
In the instant case, the shooting of Jennifer by Adelberto with an air
rifle occured when parental authority was still lodged in respondent Bundoc
spouses, the natural parents of the minor Adelberto. It would thus follow that
the natural parents who had then actual custody of the minor Adelberto, are the
indispensable parties to the suit for damages.
We do not believe that parental authority is properly regarded as having
been retroactively transferred to and vested in the adopting parents, the
Rapisura spouses, at the time the air rifle shooting happened. We do not
consider that retroactive effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as
to impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing at a time when
adopting parents had no actual or physically custody over the adopted child.
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 (since they were at the time
in the United States and had no physical custody over the child Adelberto)
would be unfair and unconscionable. Such a result, moreover, would be
inconsistent with the philosophical and policy basis underlying the doctrine of
vicarious liability. Put a little differently, no presumption of parental
dereliction on the part of the adopting parents, the Rapisura spouses, could
have arisen since Adelberto was not in fact subject to their control at the
time the tort was committed. (GR No. 85044,
June 3, 1992)
0
Comments
