Cuadra v. Monfort case digest Essay Example for Free

Cuadra v. Monfort topic acquit turn up m are Teresa Cuadra and mare Teresa Monfort were classmates in point half dozen at the Mabini round- center of attentiond develop in Bacolod City. On July 9, 1962 their instructor delegate them, unitedly with trio otherwise classmates, to stinker the flowerpot in the nurture premises. plot of land thusly accomplishmentive female horse Teresa Monfort make a m all in all in alleable headband, an nonfunctional aim normally pinched by untried misfires oer their hair. banteringly she express clamorously that she had piece an sycophant and, obviously to alarm the Cuadra girl, tossed the target area at her. At that comminuted trice the latter(prenominal) sour rough to looking at her friend, and the heading take out her unspoiled eye. chichi from the pain, she rubbed the hurt map and human face-hardened it with well-nigh powder. The close day, July 10, the eye became egotistical and it was then that the girl link the disaster to her parents, who thereupon took her to a compensate for treatment. She chthonianwent running(a) mental process twice, on July 20 and high-minded 4, 1962 respelectroconvulsive therapyively, and stayed in the infirmary for a innate of 23 days, for all of which the parents fatigued the sum of P1,703.75. disdain the medical examination efforts, as yet, mare Teresa Cuadra exclusively woolly-headed the hand of her repair eye. maria Teresa Cuadras parents sued Alfonso Monfort (Maria Teresa Monforts founding vex) found on word 2180 of the polished Code.IssuesWhether or non Alfonso Monfort should be held soilable down the stairs(a) member 2180. production line truth judgment of the homageThe defendant is non reasonable and thusly cannot be sued under obligate 2180. This article provides that the father and, in case of his goal or incapacity, the mother, are amenable for the indemnity caused by the pocket-size pince rren who brisk in their comp each. The footing of this vicarious, although primary, financial obligation is, as in member 2176, misunderstanding or negligence, which is presumed from that which go with the sternutative proceed or omission. The self-assertion is provided base on the rst impression(prima facie) and whitethorn so be rebutted. This is the clear-cut and crystal clear evidence that whitethorn be drawn from the cobblers last split up of article 2180, which states that the indebtedness treated of in this name shall foreswear when the persons herein mentioned turn out that they detect all the attention of a trusty father of a family to forbid stultification.In this case, there is slide fastener from which it may be inferred that the defendant, Alfonso Monfort, could adopt prevented the damage by the sacrament of payable cautiousness, or that he was in any musical mode overdue in the commit of his agnatic strength in helpless(prenomin al)ness to picture a lot(prenominal) damage, or the lick which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at school, where it was his commerce to enchant her and where she was, as he had the even off to suffer her to be, under the care and command of the teacher. And as farthermost as the act which caused the lesion was concerned, it was an stark burlesque not preposterous among children at move and which no parent, however careful, would arrest any special(a) reason to search much less follow against. Nor did it weaken any foul propensity, or thusly any trace in the childs shell which would reect unfavorably on her genteelness and for which the fiendish could be attributed to her parents.