TL;DR. In the Philippines, every wrongful act that injures another gives rise to civil liability. When the wrongdoer is a minor, the law still ensures that victims are compensated, but who pays depends on the child’s age, discernment, custody at the time of the act, and whether the claim is anchored on a crime (ex delicto) or a tort (quasi-delict). Parents (and sometimes schools, guardians, employers, or other custodians) can be held directly and solidarily liable or presumptively at fault, subject to defenses showing diligent supervision. Juvenile justice measures (like diversion) never erase the civil liability.

Below is a practitioner-style overview you can rely on.

I. Foundations: Sources and Types of Civil Liability

Civil liability ex delicto (from a crime). The Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that anyone criminally liable is also civilly liable. Civil liability here covers restitution, reparation, and indemnification for damages. Importantly, even when a person is exempt from criminal liability (e.g., for being below the age of criminal responsibility or for lack of discernment), civil liability usually survives and shifts to other legally responsible persons.
Civil liability from quasi-delict (tort). Separately, the Civil Code recognizes liability for negligent or wrongful acts independent of criminal prosecution. This route often implicates parents, guardians, schools, and employers via presumptions of negligence and doctrines of direct and primary (not merely subsidiary) responsibility.
Civil capacity vs. criminal responsibility. A minor’s exemption from criminal liability does not mean there is no civil liability. Minors have civil capacity to be the subject of obligations (with representation), and their property can answer for damages. But the law frequently redirects or shares liability with adults who had authority, supervision, or control.

II. Age & Discernment Matter (Juvenile Justice Framework)

Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA), as amended:

Below 15 years old: Exempt from criminal liability.
15 to below 18:
- Without discernment: Exempt from criminal liability.
- With discernment: Criminally liable, but subject to child-appropriate procedures and dispositions (diversion, suspended sentence, etc.).

Key point: Whether exempt or not, civil liability is separate. Diversion agreements often include payment or arrangements for civil liability; if diversion fails or is inappropriate, civil liability may be adjudicated in court.

III. Ex Delicto: When a Minor Commits an Act Punishable by Law

A. If the minor is exempt from criminal liability

The RPC states that in cases of exemption (which include the minor categories), civil liability is shouldered by those who have the minor under their legal authority or control, unless they prove lack of fault or negligence. In practice, this points to:

Parents (or adopters) exercising parental authority;
Guardians or custodians (e.g., foster parents);
Schools, administrators, and teachers if the act occurred while the child was under their supervision, instruction, or custody (more on this in Section IV);
Other custodians with legal control at the time (e.g., childcare facilities).

Defense available: These adults may avoid or mitigate liability by showing they exercised the diligence of a good parent of a family in supervision and control and that the injury could not have been prevented by such diligence.

B. If the minor is criminally liable (15–<18 data-preserve-html-node="true" with discernment)

The child in conflict with the law (CICL) can be adjudged civilly liable together with the parents/guardians or custodians under the same diligence standards.
Courts typically prioritize restorative justice—installment plans, community-based restitution, mediation, or diversionary settlements—without extinguishing the victim’s right to be made whole.

C. Components and enforcement

Civil liability ex delicto may include:

Restitution (return of the thing or its value);
Reparation (compensation for loss or injury, including property damage);
Indemnification for consequential damages (e.g., medical costs, lost income, moral/exemplary damages when warranted).

Enforcement may proceed:

Against the minor’s property (present or future), represented by parents/guardians; and/or
Against those with legal authority/control per the RPC rule on exempt offenders; and/or
Against other jointly liable persons (e.g., schools under special parental authority).

IV. Quasi-Delict (Tort): Direct & Primary Liability of Parents and Schools

Even without—or beyond—a criminal case, a victim may sue in tort. Two pillars govern who pays when the wrongdoer is a minor:

Parents under the Civil Code (Article 2180). Parents are responsible for damages caused by their unemancipated minor children living with them. This is a presumption of parental negligence in supervision and control. It is direct and primary (not merely subsidiary) liability, subject to the diligence defense (i.e., they exercised all the vigilance that could reasonably be expected).
Schools and teachers under the Family Code (Special Parental Authority). While a minor is in school or under school supervision (including authorized activities off-campus):
- Schools, administrators, and teachers exercise special parental authority.
- They are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts of the minor under their supervision, again subject to the diligence defense.
- Parents/guardians are typically subsidiarily liable in these school-custody scenarios.

Practical effect:

If harm occurs during class, a school event, practice, or any activity under school control, claimants usually proceed first against the school/teachers (principal and solidary), with parents/guardians as subsidiary payors.
If harm occurs outside school custody (e.g., at home or in the neighborhood), parents become the focal point of direct liability via Article 2180.

V. Choosing a Legal Path: Criminal, Civil, or Both

A victim typically has three procedural routes:

Criminal action with implied civil action (ex delicto). Filing or prosecuting the criminal case (if any) generally includes the civil action for damages, unless the victim waives, reserves, or has already filed a separate civil case. If the minor is exempt, the civil action may still proceed against the legally responsible adults.
Independent civil action for quasi-delict (tort). This can be pursued even if a criminal case is pending or impossible. Standards of proof and defenses differ from ex delicto.
Contractual or statutory claims, where applicable (e.g., school undertakings, insurance). These may supplement or structure payment (e.g., liability insurance carried by schools).

Strategy tip: Plaintiffs often sue on both ex delicto and quasi-delict theories in the alternative, to capture all possible liable persons and benefit from presumptions (parental negligence; special parental authority of schools).

VI. Burdens of Proof & Defenses

Against parents (home context): Victim must show the minor’s wrongful act and the parental relationship/cohabitation. Burden then shifts to parents to prove due diligence in supervision and control.
Against schools (school custody): Victim must show the act occurred while under school supervision. The school/teachers must then demonstrate all appropriate precautions—policies, training, adequate supervision ratios, prompt interventions, compliance with safety standards, and that the harm would have occurred despite such diligence.
Against “those having authority or control” (RPC when minor is exempt): Similar diligence standards apply; absence of negligence can absolve or mitigate their liability.

VII. Special Situations

Bullying and peer-on-peer harm in schools. Anti-bullying policies and the Family Code’s special parental authority often result in school-level principal/solidary liability, subject to the diligence defense, alongside possible parental subsidiary liability.
Vehicular incidents. If a minor drives and causes injury, plaintiffs often proceed on multiple fronts: the minor (property), parents (Article 2180), registered owner (separate statutory presumption of responsibility), employer (if within scope of work), and insurers where applicable.
Workplace/Apprenticeship settings. Heads of establishments or employers may face direct or subsidiary liability depending on whether the claim is framed as a tort (Civil Code) or ex delicto (RPC) and whether the minor was under their custody or control.
Diversion agreements (JJWA). Diversion can memorialize civil compensation—e.g., restitution in installments, community service tied to harm reparation, or mediated settlements. Non-compliance can be enforced in court, and diversion does not bar civil actions if harm is unmet.

VIII. Damages: What Can Be Recovered?

Actual damages (hospital bills, therapy, repairs, lost income with competent proof);
Moral damages (for physical injuries, mental anguish, humiliation);
Exemplary damages (to deter egregious conduct or negligence);
Temperate damages (when actual loss is certain but amount cannot be proved with certainty);
Attorney’s fees and costs (when allowed by law and equity).

Courts tailor awards with the best interests of the child in mind, balancing victim compensation with the rehabilitative aim of juvenile justice.

IX. Execution and Practical Payment Questions

Whose pocket pays first?
- School-custody cases: School/teachers (principal/solidary), then parents (subsidiary).
- Home/non-school context: Parents (direct and primary under Article 2180), with the minor’s property also answerable.
- Exempt minor under the RPC rule: Those with legal authority/control at the time, unless they prove lack of negligence.
Insurance. Educational institutions and some families carry liability insurance; this can fund or structure payment.
Installments & restorative terms. Courts and diversion bodies commonly allow installment payments, work-in-lieu arrangements (where appropriate), or structured settlements—but these require victim consent and/or court approval.

X. Checklist for Practitioners and Parties

For victims:

Identify where the act occurred (home, school, field trip, workplace).
Determine age and discernment of the minor.
Decide whether to proceed ex delicto, quasi-delict, or both.
Gather evidence of custody/control (class lists, trip memos, CCTV, policies, supervision logs).
Preserve proof of damages (receipts, medical reports).

For parents/guardians/schools:

Document policies and supervision measures (ratios, training, rules, incident responses).
Act promptly on incident reports; offer restorative solutions early.
Evaluate insurance coverage and notify insurers.

XI. Bottom Line

When a minor causes harm, civil liability does not disappear. The law allocates payment responsibilities to the adults who should have prevented the harm—primarily parents at home and schools/teachers during custody—subject to concrete proof that they exercised all due diligence. The minor’s own property can also answer for damages, but Philippine law strongly favors restorative justice while ensuring victims are compensated.

This article is for general guidance within the Philippine legal framework. Specific cases turn on facts and current jurisprudence; consult counsel for tailored advice.