You are on page 1of 2

Joed Marice V.

Zamora
Torts
Paez, et. al. vs. De la Torre, et. al.
7 CA Reports 672
Facts:
Defendant Vivencio de la Torre owns jeepneys for hire in Cebu City which were garaged during
night time at Vivencios residence in Labangon, Cebu City. The other defendant, Isidro De la
Torre, is the son of Vivencio and was then 20 years old on the date of the occurrence of the
incident complained.
The incident happened at about 9p.m., June 1953, when Isidro, with his friends, took from the
garage one of his fathers jeepney (allegedly without his fathers knowledge and consent) and
proceeded to the house of his sweatheart Lydia Ladislao in Punta Princesa, Cebu City (whom he
later married on November 1953) to attend the prayer held for the soul of Lydias father. Some
people who also attended said prayer were attracted by the conflagration of a building in
Magallanes Street, and so they went to see the site aboard the jeepney of Isidro.
It was late in the evening when the overloaded (carried 19 passengers) jeepney approached a
narrow bridge which was 3 inches higher from the level of the road, curving to the left, and that
on the right of the road after crossing the bridge was a 4-meter-deep canal. Hence, such
circumstances required the exercise of prudence on the part of Isidro in determining his speed.
However, the speed was not abated. The jeepney careened, slipped and was thrown at a
considerable distance after it was overturned. And shortly before the jeepney had overturned, its
lights were put out probably because of the excessive speed.
The lower court concluded that the proximate cause of the accident was the excessive speed with
which the jeepney was driven by Isidro which he should not have done so in the face of the
circumstances aforecited. In fact, Isidro pleaded guilty to serious physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence arising from the incident and he served sentence because he alleged that Paez will no
longer institute the action if he served the sentence.
Issues:
Whether a minors parents are simultaneously liable for damages caused by the minor under
Article 2180 of the Civil Code
Ruling:
No. The responsibility of the father and mother for damages, under Article 2180 of the Civil
Code, is not simultaneous but alternate, the father being primarily responsible and the mother
answering only in case of his death or incapacity. In the case, both father and mother of Isidro are
still living and capable. Hence, it is improper to join the mother as party defendant.
Even if a minor is not living with his parents, as in the case, so long as it is proved that such
minor is under the control of and being supported by his parents, the latter would still be liable
for quasi delict arising from the acts and omissions of the minor. In the case, Isidro was proved to

be working as a mechanic of his father and even gave his parents address as his official
residence in his school records. Hence, it is just a clear showing that Isidro was still under and
supervision of his parents.
This is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes
upon the parents the duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them in
proportion to their means, and gives them the right to correct and punish them in moderation.
The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove they
exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage.

You might also like