8/11/2019 Tamargo vs CA

1/2

1

Tamargo v. CA

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, onOctober

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 [Adelbertos natural parentswith whom he was living

at the time of the incident] by Jennifers 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 andgranting of the petition since Adelberto was then living with his natural parents.

RTC dismissed Sps. Tamargos complaint and ruled that Sps. Bundoc were not indispensable parties to

the action. CA dismissed Sps. Tamargos 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 ones 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 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

Adelbertos 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

Courts legal bases

PD 603, Article 58 TortsParents and guardians are responsible for the damage caused by the

child under their parental authority in accordance with the Civil Code

8/11/2019 Tamargo vs CA

2/2

2

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

PETITION GRANTED; CA DECISION REVERSED AND SET ASIDE; CASE REMANDED TO RTC