Faults of the father | as easy as ABC

When they said success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan, that is not quite true, legally.

Laws are crafted following general human culture, such as: the father is the head of the family, provides for the family, and thus assumes control. (Well, this is not really the case in most households. The truth is, the father is in charge, symbolically, but the wife actually runs the show). Since it is Father’s Day, let’s pretend today that the father is in charge. Anyway legally, he takes first priority in terms of assuming liability for damages or crimes committed by children, below 18 years old, under his care. His defense against liability is that he exercised the due diligence of a good father of a family. How effective this defense is will be one of the lessons this Sunday.

A couple of recent stories in the international limelight may help everybody relate. In the case of the boy who fell in the gorilla pen in a US zoo, the zoo security needed to shoot the rare gorilla to save the boy. Can the parent of the boy who was with him during the incident be made liable for the death of the animal, an endangered species at that? What about the recent rape in a US school campus where the male student was meted a light penalty by the US court? If the student is old enough to have discretion, can the father of that student be made to pay the rape victim of his son?

If those incidents happened in the Philippines, there is enough case law to provide guidance.

The case of Araneta vs. Arreglado is an example of a liability on the father, which is easy to accept. In this case, 14-year-old boy Arreglado walked by a group of boys in his class sitting on top of a wall. They teased Arreglado about his planned transfer from Ateneo to La Salle. Boy Arreglado did not take the banter well and suddenly pulled a pistol licensed to his dad. He shot at the group and hit boy Araneta in the jaw. The boy who was shot survived a life and death situation. While boy Arreglado was too young to be jailed despite the criminal act, his father was made liable due to an obvious fault of negligently allowing his son access to his gun.

There are cases though, that make you wonder why the father is considered at fault. In Exconde vs Capuno, there was a school parade to honor Dr. Jose Rizal. Boy Capuno, 15 years old, along with other students boarded a jeep. Boy Capuno sat beside the driver, and at one point took hold of the wheel. The jeep flipped over causing the death of one of the student passengers. While it was a school activity and the father of Boy Capuno could not have done anything to prevent it as he was not there, the court said he failed to prove that he exercised “all diligence” of a good father to prevent the damage. Thus, the father was made liable for the civil liabilities.

In Fuellas vs Cadano, 13-year-old Boy Fuellas bullied a classmate in school. He pushed his classmate to the ground and rode on him. His classmate’s right forearm was completely fractured which took many months in a cast to heal. The incident happened within the school grounds and the father could not have prevented it. The court nonetheless found the father liable for damages as he failed to prove that he exercised “all diligence” of a good father to prevent his son from creating that damage.

The law makes the negligence or infractions of the son as acts of the father. And while exercise of diligence of a good father can exculpate, the presumption in favor of liability is quite strong. Possibly, the fathers in those cases should have shown that they warned the school authorities of the traits and tendencies of their sons to be violent or harmfully naughty to have a chance at proving diligence. It must be pointed out though that the liability of the father for damages is subsidiary, not solidary. This means the father may be liable if the son has no means to pay it. So in today’s world where a few tech-talented millennials earn money at an early age, they will be personally liable if they can afford to pay.

There is one example coming from an early case where the father was not considered liable. In Cuadra vs. Monfort, sixth grade girls were involved. Girl Monfort made an innocent prank on her friend/classmate during a gardening exercise. She threw something at her friend and shouted “worm” to scare her classmate but the soiled object hit the latter in the eye. The classmate aggravated the injury by rubbing her eye and putting powder in it which caused her blindness in that eye. While the blinded classmate deserves all commiseration, the court found no legal liability on the father of Girl Monfort. The court said there is but a moral obligation to help out. Thus, while legally not liable, the court said the father can be morally liable.

Back to the international incidents I referred to earlier, answer comes easy if it happened here. The father would pay up for the death of the rare gorilla killed to save his fallen son; and the father of the student rapist, if he was below 18, would pay for the damages, even if the student acted with discernment.

I do not mean to frighten fathers on a Father’s Day. I know all of us are not perfect but we do everything humanly possible to make everything work for good, for our families. I write this article while on a flight, and will not be home with my father or my sons on Father’s Day. So let me be home in spirit and let me raise a toast. Despite all troubles, it is less of a sacrifice, more of a privilege to be a father. It is indeed priceless, but may our children keep us safe from damage claims.