Number 1

X- driver of bus
Y- operator
C & D parents of A
A - driver of Car
P passenger
B- bystander
P can sue X and Y solidarily under quasi-delict
B can sue A C D solidarily since A is a minor under quasi-delict

Art. 1157. Obligations arise from:

(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.

In the case of Bascos vs CA & Cipriano

Article 1732 of the Civil Code defines a common carrier as "(a) person, corporation or firm, or
association engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land,
water or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public." The test to determine a common
carrier is "whether the given undertaking is a part of the business engaged in by the carrier which he has
held out to the general public as his occupation rather than the quantity or extent of the business
transacted."

From the above legal provisions, we can make the following restatement of the principles governing the
liability of a common carrier: (1) the liability of a carrier is contractual and arises upon breach of its
obligation. There is breach if it fails to exert extraordinary diligence according to all circumstances of
each case; (2) a carrier is obliged to carry its passenger with the utmost diligence of a very cautious
person, having due regard for all the circumstances; (3) a carrier is presumed to be at fault or to have
acted negligently in case of death of, or injury to, passengers, it being its duty to prove that it exercised

extraordinary diligence; and (4) the carrier is not an insurer against all risks of travel. ( Isaac vs. A.L.
Ammen Transportation Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-9671, August 23, 1957, [J., Bautista-Angelo])
Article 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as human care and foresight
can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious persons, with a due regard for all the
circumstances.
Article 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are presumed to have been at
fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they observed extraordinary diligence as
prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.
In the case of Franco vs Lugue G.R No. 71137 , the court stated that
Art. 2176. 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.
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Art. 2180. The obligations 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.
xxx xxx xxx
Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within
the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry,
xxx xxx xxx
The 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.

For the parents:

In the case of Tamargo vs CA & Bundoc G.R No. 85044
As Article 2176 of the Civil Code provides:
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 . . .

Upon the other hand, the law imposes civil liability upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity,
the mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor child who lives with them. Article 2180 of the
Civil Code reads:
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.
xxx xxx xxx
The responsibility treated of in this Article shall cease when the person herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(Emphasis supplied)
This principle of parental liability is a species of what is frequently designated as vicarious liability, or the
doctrine of "imputed negligence" under Anglo-American tort law, where a person is not only liable for
torts committed by himself, but also for torts committed by others with whom he has a certain
relationship and for whom he is responsible. Thus, parental liability is made a natural or logical
consequence of the duties and responsibilities of parents their parental authority which includes the
instructing, controlling and disciplining of the child.
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 its 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 overtuned 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.

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.

A case in point is Exconde vs. Capuno, 101 Phil., 843

The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children who live with them, is obvious. This is
a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the
parents the "duty of supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them in proportion to

their means", while, on the other hand, gives them the "right to correct and punish them in moderation"
(Arts. 134 and 135, Spanish Civil Code). The only way by which they can relieved themselves of this
liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the
damage (Art. 1903, last paragraph, Spanish Civil Code.)