Liability for injuries caused by a child

Liability for injuries caused by a child "Lito, a 12-year-old son of our neighbor, was playing with an air gun when he pulled the trigger, causing the gun to fire a bullet that hit my son Julio. My son was hospitalized for five days because of what happened. I filed a complaint before barangay authorities against the parents of Lito who have actual custody of him for compensation for the injuries sustained by my son. During the barangay confrontation, Lito’s parents claimed that they are not liable for the act of their son because Lito was already adopted by Mr. and Mrs. Jenis after the incident. Who between the natural parents and the adopters may be made liable for the injuries caused by Lito? Please help me. PaquitoDear Paquito, The law governing your situation is found under Article 2176 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, which states, “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 and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.”Relative thereto, Article 2180 of the same law states: “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. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company.Xxx xxxXxx xxxXxx xxx Xxx xxxThe responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.”Since Lito was only adopted after he caused the injury to your son, the natural parents who are still exercising parental authority or had actual custody of him at the time may be made liable for the injuries caused by the child.In the case of Tamargo et al. vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 85044 , June 3, 1992), the Supreme Court through former Associate Justice Florentino Feliciano stated:“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 his 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 overturned 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.”Applying the above decision to your situation, Lito’s natural parents are still responsible for the injury caused by him. They cannot escape liability by claiming that Lito is already adopted because their relationship with Lito is not yet severed when the incident occurred.We find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter." - https://www.affordablecebu.com/