Chapter 3 Effect of Parental Authority Upon the Persons of the Children - ARTICLES 220 TO 224

Reporters:

Henry Herrera

Cleotilde Ilagan

The FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Title IX – PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Chapter 3 – Effect of Parental Authority upon the Persons of the Children

Article 220

The parents and those exercising parental authority shall have with the respect to their unemancipated children or wards the following rights and duties:

1. To keep them in their company, to support, educate and instruct them by right precept and good example, and to provide for their upbringing in keeping with their means;
2. To give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and understanding;
3. To provide them with moral and spiritual guidance, inculcate in them honesty, integrity, self-discipline, self-reliance, industry and thrift, stimulate their interest in civic affairs, and inspire in them compliance with the duties of citizenship;
4. To enhance, protect, preserve and maintain their physical and mental health at all times;
5. To furnish them with good and wholesome educational materials, supervise their activities, recreation and association with others, protect them from bad company, and prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their health, studies and morals;
6. To represent them in all matters affecting their interests;
7. To demand from them respect and obedience;
8. To impose discipline on them as may be required under the circumstances; and
9. To perform such other duties as are imposed by law upon parents and guardians. (316a)

Unemancipated child refers to a minor who is not yet free from the custody of parental control due to being under the age of majority.

From the enumeration of Art. 220, the parents or whosoever has the custody of the child are supposed to promote the social, mental and physical development of the child.

It is provided under Art. 220 (7) and (8), children shall at all times, respect their parents and they are obliged to obey them.  Parents may also impose discipline on them as may be required by the circumstances. 

Article 221

Parents and those who are exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts of omissions of their unemacipated child living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law.

LIABILITY OF A MOTHER OR FATHER and

THOSE EXERCISING PARENTAL AUTHORITY

OVER A CHILD

Illustration:

     X, a minor child living in Manila while his parents are in the province, X commits an act or omission causing damage to another, the parents are not liable.

Under Article 221 of the Family Code of the Philippines, parents and those who are exercising parental authority over the unemancipated child are jointly and solidary liable for the acts or omissions of their minor for their failure to supervise them in order to prevent them from causing damage to other person.

It was insisted under the provision of Article 221 of the Family Code the requisite that the child, doer of the tortuous act, shall have been in the actual custody of the parents and guardians before the latter will be held liable for the damages.

Tort – an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts imposes liability.

Ex.  If a minor child in the company of his parents, commits a tortuous act:
      w the parents are not liable together
      w his father should be sued alone
      w in the absence of the father or in his
          incapacity, the mother can be made
          liable.

When an unemancipated child living with its parents commits a tortuous 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.

Liability of other persons exercising parental authority.

Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the following shall have special parental authority over a minor child under their supervision, instructions of custody:

1) the school, its administration and teachers;
2) the individual entity or institution engaged in child care.

This special parental authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution.

        Ex. Field trips and other affairs of pupils and students  outside the school premises whether authorized by its school or teachers. (St. Mary’s Academy vs. Carpitanos et. al)

CASE DIGEST

G.R. NO. 143363, February 6,2002

ST. MARY’S ACADEMY, petitioner vs.

WILLIAM CARPITANOS and LUCIA S. CARPITANOS, GUADA DANIEL, JAMES DANIEL II, JAMES DANIEL SR., and VIVENCIO VILLANUEVA, respondents

PONENTE:  Justice Pardo

FACTS:

Defendant-Appellant, St. Mary’s Academy of Dipolog City conducted an enrollment campaign drive for the school year 1995-1996.  The campaign drive conducted visitation of schools from where prospective enrollees were studying.  Sherwin Carpitanos, as a student of St. Mary’s Academy, participated in the campaign.  On the fateful day, Sherwin, along with other high school students were riding a Mitsubishi jeep owned by defendant Vivencio Villanueva on their way to Larayan Elementary School, Dapitan City.  The jeep was allegedly driven by James Daniel II, 15 years old and student of the same school.  The latter allegedly drove the jeep in the reckless manner and resulted the jeep to capsize. Sherwin Carpitanos died as a result of the injuries he sustained.

           

            RTC held that St. Mary’s Academy principally liable for the death of Sherwin as it had special parental authority over the minor at the time of the incident.  James Daniel, the minor driver who was under special parental authority of the school was ABSOLVED from paying damages.  The liability of the parents of James  were only subsidiary. Owner of the jeep, Vivencio Villanueva is also ABSOLVED.

            CA affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:    Whether or not the appellant school, St. Mary’s Academy as an institution exercising parental authority over the child, Sherwin Carpitanos is liable for damages for the latter’s death.

HELD: 

The Supreme Court held that it is not the school but the registered owner of the jeep, Vivencio Villanueva is liable for the death of Sherwin Carpitanos. 

Under Article 218 of the Family Code, the school shall have special parental authority over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody.  This special authority and responsibility applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the school. 

Furthermore, SC said that under Article 219 of the Family Code, if the person under custody is a minor, those exercising special parental authority are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor under their supervision, instruction, or custody.  However, considering that the negligence of the minor driver or the detachment of the steering wheel guide of the jeep owned by respondent Villanueva was an event over which appellant, St. Mary’s Academy had no control, and which was the proximate cause of the accident, appellant may not be held liable for the death resulting from the accident.

            The Supreme Court reverses and set aside the ruling of the CA and that of the trial court.  The Court remands the case to the trial court for determination of the liability of defendants, excluding appellant, St. Mary’s Academy.

Article 222
            The courts may appoint a guardian of the child’s property, or a guardian ad litem when the best interests of the child so require.(317)

            ad litem – latin “for the suit”
            guardian ad litem – guardian for the suit

Illustration :
            Assume that child x has properties received from his mother w. His father h is a drug defendant and a gambler and doesn’t have any care for x. Assuming that h would abuse his powers as guardian over the properties of x.
            The court may appoint a guardian of the child’s property or a guardian ad litem.
            “The best interest of the child is always of paramount importance.”
            X may sue his father h. He needs a guardian ad litem.

Article 223

            The parents or, in their absence or incapacity, the individual entity or institution exercising parental authority, may petition the proper court of the place where the child resides, for an order providing for disciplinary measures over the child.

The child shall be entitled to the assistance of counsels, either of his choice or appointed by the court, and a summary hearing shall be conducted wherein the petitioner and the child shall be heard.
            However, if in the same proceeding the court finds the petitioner at fault, irrespective of the merits of the petition, or when the circumstances so warrant, the court may also order the deprivation or suspension of parental authority or adopt such other measure as it may deem just and proper.(318a)

As an incident to the duty of parents to uphold the best interest of the child, the parents can impose certain form of discipline upon him but the same must be reasonable.

Parents and those persons exercising authority over a minor may go to court and apply for providing for disciplinary measures over the child.  But if the court finds that parents or the one who has custody of the child to be at fault, the court may suspend or deprive them of their parental authority.

           

Article 224

If proven that the child is at fault, the child will be committed for not more than thirty (30) days in entities or institutions engaged in child care or children’s home accredited by the government.

The parent or guardian shall not interfere with the care of the child whenever committed to the said institution but shall provide for his support.

Upon proper petition or at its own instance, the court may terminate the commitment of the child whenever just and proper.
           

References:

Judge Albano, Ed Vincent S. (2017). Family Code of the Philippines