Cuadra v. Monfort case digest Essay Example for Free

Cuadra v. Monfort case digest EssayMaria Teresa Cuadra and Maria Teresa Monfort were classmates in Grade six-spot at the Mabini Elementary School in Bacolod City. On July 9, 1962 their teacher assigned them, together with three other classmates, to weed the grass in the school premises. epoch thus engaged Maria Teresa Monfort found a plastic headband, an ornamental object lens commonly worn by young girls over their hair. Jokingly she express aloud that she had found an earthworm and, evidently to frighten the Cuadra girl, tossed the object at her. At that precise moment the latter turned around to face her friend, and the object hit her right eye. Smarting from the pain, she rubbed the injured part and treated it with some powder. The next day, July 10, the eye became swollen and it was then that the girl related the incident to her parents, who thereupon took her to a doctor for treatment. She underwent surgical operation twice, on July 20 and August 4, 1962 respectively, and stayed in the hospital for a total of twenty-three days, for all of which the parents spent the sum of P1,703.75. patronage the medical efforts, however, Maria Teresa Cuadra completely lost the sight of her right eye. Maria Teresa Cuadras parents sued Alfonso Monfort (Maria Teresa Monforts father) based on phrase 2180 of the Civil Code.IssuesWhether or not Alfonso Monfort should be held liable under Article 2180.Business LawRuling of the courtThe defendant is not liable and and then cannot be sued under Article 2180. This article provides that 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 comp either. The basis of this vicarious, although primary, indebtedness is, as in Article 2176, fault or negligence, which is presumed from that which accompanied the causative act or omission. The presumption is merely based on the rst impression(prima facie) and may therefore be rebutted. This is the clear and logical inference that may be drawn from the last paragraph of Article 2180, which states that the responsibility treated of in this Article shall finish when the persons herein mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.In this case, there is nothing from which it may be inferred that the defendant, Alfonso Monfort, could have prevented the damage by the observance of due care, or that he was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental authorisation in failing to foresee such damage, or the act which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at school, where it was his duty to send her and where she was, as he had the right to tolerate her to be, under the care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as the act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an innocent prank not unusual among children at play and which no parent, however careful, would have any special reason to anticipate much les s guard against. Nor did it reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed any trait in the childs character which would reect unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the blame could be attributed to her parents.