Case Digest: AGAPITO FUELLAS vs. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL.

AGAPITO FUELLAS, petitioner, vs. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL., respondents.
G.R. No. L-14409   [October 31, 1961]

FACTS:

Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-appellant Agapito Fuellas, were both 13 years old and classmates at St. Mary’s High School, Dansalan City. While Pepito was studying his lessons in the classroom, Rico took the pencil of one Ernesto Cabanok and surreptitiously placed it inside the pocket of Pepito. When Ernesto asked Rico to return the pencil, it was Pepito who returned the same, an act which angered Rico, who held the neck of Pepito and pushed him to the floor. Villamira, a teacher, separated Rico and Pepito and told them to go home. Rico went ahead, with Pepito following. When Pepito had just gone down of the schoolhouse, he was met by Rico, still in an angry mood. Angelito Aba, a classmate, told the two to shake hands. Pepito extended his hand to Rico, but the latter instead held the former by the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito out of balance and pushed him to the ground. Pepito fell on his right side with his right arm under his body, whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. While Rico was in such position, Pepito suddenly cried out “My arm is broken.” Rico then got up and went away. Pepito was helped by others to go home. That same evening Pepito was brought to the Lanao General Hospital for treatment and the results of the x-ray revealed that there was a complete fracture of the radius and ulna of the right forearm which necessitated plaster casting. As a result, a civil case for damages was filed against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico.

ISSUE:

WON Agapito Fuellas may be held liable for damages for the deliberate criminal act of his minor son.

HELD:

YES. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, 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. This civil liability of the father or the mother, as the case may be, is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them and the only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Since children and wards do not yet have the capacity to govern themselves, the law imposes upon the parents and guardians the duty of exercising special vigilance over the acts of their children and wards in order that damages to third persons due to the ignorance, lack of foresight or discernment of such children and wards may be avoided. If the parents and guardians fail to comply with this duty, they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage caused”.