Libi v.

IAC FACTS: Julie and Wendell were sweethearts for 2 years when Julie broke it off due to Wendells sadistic and irresponsible nature. A month after their break-up, Julie and Wendell died each from a single gunshot wound traced to the gun licensed in the name of Cresencio Libi, the father of Wendell. There were 2 versions of the story: Libis: another man shot the 2 Gotiong: Wendell shot Julie and then committed suicide. The Gotiongs (julies parents) fiuled for damages against the Livis under Art. 2180. TC:dismissed for insufficiency of evidence IAC: Set aside TC and found the Libis subsidiarily liable. ISSUE: WON Art. 2180 was correctly applied to hold the Libis liable. HELD: Yes. Libis are primarily liable CA affirmed. The Libis were grossly negligent from preventing Wendell from having access to the key to the safety deposit box where the gun was stored. Diligence required is that ofinstruction andsupervision of the kid. BUT, liability is not subsidiary, it is PRIMARY Rule on parents liability is correct but characterization of their nature must be given a second look (coz SC held in some cases that the liability of parents is subsidiary). If the liability of the parents for crimes or QDs of their minor children is subsidiary, then they can neither invoke nor be absolved of civil liability on the defense that they acted with the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damages. But if the liability is direct and primary, the diligence would constitute a valid and substantial defense. Hence, the liability of parents for QDs of their minor kids as contemplated in 2180 is PRIMARY and not subsidiary. In fact, applying 2194 (solidary liability of join tortfeasors) the parent is also solidarily liable with the child. The liability of parents for felonies is likewise PRIMARY & not subsidiary. Art. 101, RPC says so. For both QDs and crimes, the parents primarily respond for such damages is buttressed by the corresponding provisions in both the RPC and CC that the minor transgressor shall be answerable or shall respond with his own property only in the absence or in case of the insolvency of the parents. Arts. 21822, CC and 1013, RPC support this.

RULES: 1. For civil liability from crimes committed by minors under the legal authority or control or who live in the company of the parents: PRIMARY -Premised on Art. 101, RPC with respect to damages ex delicto by kids 9 or under, or 9-15 but without discernment -Premised on Art. 2180, CC for kids 9-15 with discernment, or 15-21 (now 18) 2. Liability effected against father or mother? BOTH PARENTS AND THOSE WHO EXERCISE PARENTAL AUTHORITY OVER THE MINOR. Under 2180, the liability shall be effected against the father, and in case of his death or incapacity the mother-which rule was amplified by the Youth and Welfare Code. BUT, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such alternative qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise parental authority over the minor offender. 3. For civil liability arising from QDs committed by minors: same rules in accordance with 2180 and 2182, as so modified. NOTES: This case cleared up the issue on whether the parents liability is primary or subsidiary. CLASS NOTES What is the basis of the doctrine that liability of parents is primary and not solidary? Why? o 2 legal bases: 101 RPC and 2182 CC Why?-provisions provide for such defense liability of parents is primary According to the Court, the reliance onFuellas v. Cadano was NOT correct because the liability in fuellas was PRIMARY (syllabus can be wrong kasi) Why primary liability? 1. law provides a defense; 2. property of minor only liable when parents are insolvent