Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 25 views

    Salen Vs Balce

    Uploaded by

    MaFatimaP.Lee
    Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera sued Jose Balce to recover P2,000 that Balce's son Gumersindo was convicted and sentenced to pay for homicide. [1] The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the law allowing recovery did not apply to criminal cases. [2] The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Article 2180 of the Civil Code holds parents subsidiary liable for damages caused by their children, even in criminal cases. [3] This prevents the absurd result that parents would be liable for negligent acts but not intentional criminal acts of their children.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Salen Vs Balce

    Uploaded by

    MaFatimaP.Lee
    25 views1 page
    Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera sued Jose Balce to recover P2,000 that Balce's son Gumersindo was convicted and sentenced to pay for homicide. [1] The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the law allowing recovery did not apply to criminal cases. [2] The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Article 2180 of the Civil Code holds parents subsidiary liable for damages caused by their children, even in criminal cases. [3] This prevents the absurd result that parents would be liable for negligent acts but not intentional criminal acts of their children.

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    Salen vs Balce

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera sued Jose Balce to recover P2,000 that Balce's son Gumersindo was convicted and sentenced to pay for homicide. [1] The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the law allowing recovery did not apply to criminal cases. [2] The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Article 2180 of the Civil Code holds parents subsidiary liable for damages caused by their children, even in criminal cases. [3] This prevents the absurd result that parents would be liable for negligent acts but not intentional criminal acts of their children.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    25 views1 page

    Salen Vs Balce

    Uploaded by

    MaFatimaP.Lee
    Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera sued Jose Balce to recover P2,000 that Balce's son Gumersindo was convicted and sentenced to pay for homicide. [1] The trial court dismissed the case, finding that the law allowing recovery did not apply to criminal cases. [2] The Supreme Court reversed, finding that Article 2180 of the Civil Code holds parents subsidiary liable for damages caused by their children, even in criminal cases. [3] This prevents the absurd result that parents would be liable for negligent acts but not intentional criminal acts of their children.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Salen vs.

    Balce
    SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA vs. JOSE BALCE
    G.R. No. L-14414. 27 April 1960.
    Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Camarines Norte.
    Bautista Angelo, J.:

    Facts: Plaintiffs are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen who died from wounds caused by Gumersindo
    Balce, a legitimate son of defendant who was then single, 18 yrs old and was living with defendant. As a
    result of C. Salen's death, G. Balce was accused and convicted of homicide and was sentenced to
    imprisonment and to pay the amount of P2,000.00. Plaintiffs brought this action against defendant
    before CFI to recover the sum of P2,000.00, with legal interest. Defendant, in his answer, set up the
    defense that the law upon which plaintiffs predicate their right to recover does not here apply for the
    reason that law refers to quasi-delicts and not to criminal cases. CFI sustained the theory of defendant.

    Issue: WON appellee can be held subsidiary liable to pay the indemnity in accordance with Art. 2180 of
    the CC.

    Ruling: Judgment reversed.


    Art 2180 CC applies in the case at bar. To hold otherwise would result in the absurdity that while for an
    act where mere negligence intervenes the father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage
    caused by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Verily, the
    void that apparently exists in the RPC (art.101) is subserved by this particular provision of our CC, as may
    be gleaned from some recent decisions of the SC which cover equal or identical cases.

    You might also like