No. L-24803. May 26, 1977.

*
PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as
Ascendants of Agapito Elcano, deceased, plaintiffs-appellants, Same; Same; Same; A separate civil action lies against the
vs. REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
Natural Guardian of said minor, defendants-appellees. prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the
victim do not recover damages on both scores.—. . . It results,
Civil law; Damages; Quasi-delicts; The concept of culpa therefore, that the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case
aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character, whether has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that
voluntary or negligent.—Contrary to an immediate impression acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.
one might get upon a reading of the foregoing excerpts from
the opinion in Garcia—that the concurrence of the Penal Code Same; Same; Same; The vicarious liability of the parents on
and the Civil Code therein referred to contemplates only acts of account of a delict committed by their minor child is not
negligence and not intentional voluntary acts—deeper extinguished by the fact that said, child who is Hiring with and
reflection would reveal that the thrust of the pronouncements dependent upon said parents is married.—Coming now to the
therein is not so limited, but that in fact is actually extends to second issue about the effect of Reginald’s emancipation by
fault or culpa. This can be seen in the reference made therein marriage on the possible civil liability of Atty. Hill, his father, it is
to the Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 14, also Our considered opinion that the conclusion of appellees
1919, supra, which involved a case of fraud or estafa, not a that Atty. Hill is already free from responsibility cannot be
negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain, in upheld. . . . . It must be borne in mind that, according to
force here at the time of Garcia, provided textually that Manresa, the reason behind the joint and solidary liability of
obligations “which are derived from acts or omissions in which parents with their offending child under Article 2180 is that it is
fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervene shall be the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in
the subject of Chapter 11, Title XV of this book (which refers to order to prevent them from causing damage to third persons.
quasi-delicts.)” And it is precisely the underlined qualification, On the other hand, the clear implication of Article 399, in
“not punishable by law,” that Justice Bocobo emphasized could providing that a minor emancipated by marriage may not,
lead to an undesirable construction or interpretation of the nevertheless, sue or be sued without the assistance of the
letter of the law that “killeth, rather than the spirit that giveth parents, is that such emancipation does not carry with it
life” hence, the ruling that “(W)e will not use the literal meaning freedom to enter into transactions or do any act that can give
of the law to smother and render almost lifeless a principle of rise to judicial litigation. (See Manresa, id., Vol. II, pp. 766-767,
such ancient origin and such full-grown development as culpa 776.) And surely, killing someone else invites judicial action.
aquiliana or causi-delito, which is conserved and made Otherwise stated, the marriage of a minor child does not
enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code.” relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the child, while
And so, because Justice Bocobo was Chairman of the Code still a minor, does not give cause to any litigation, in the same
Commission that drafted the original text of the new Civil Code, manner that the parents are answerable for the borrowings of
it is to be noted that the said Code, which was enacted after money and alienation or encumbering of real property which
the Garcia doctrine, no longer uses the term, “not punishable cannot be done by their minor married child without their
by law,” thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa consent, (Art. 399; Manresa, supra.) Accordingly, in Our
aquiliana includes acts which are criminal in character or in considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill
violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or negligent. notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald.

1 of 2
However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age,
as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become
merely subsidiary to that of his son.

2 of 2
167 Phil. 462

SECOND DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977 ]
PEDRO ELCANO AND PATRICIA ELCANO, IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS ASCENDANTS OF AGAPITO ELCANO,
DECEASED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. REGINALD
HILL, MINOR, AND MARVIN HILL, AS FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF SAID MINOR, DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES.
DECISION

BARREDO, J.:

Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City dated January
29, 1965 in Civil Case No. Q-8102, Pedro Elcano et al. vs. Reginald Hill et al.
dismissing, upon motion to dismiss of defendants, the complaint of plaintiffs for
recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the
occurrence, and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he was living and
getting subsistence, for the killing by Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs, named
Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally prosecuted, the said accused was acquitted
on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled
with mistake."
Actually, the motion to dismiss based on the following grounds:

"1. The present action is not only against but a violation of section 1,
Rule 107, which is now Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Court;

“2. The action is barred by a prior judgment which is now final and or in
res-adjudicata;

"3. The complaint had no cause of action against defendant Marvin Hill,
because he was relieved as guardian of the other defendant through
emancipation by marriage."

(p. 23, Record [p. 4, Record on Appeal.])

was first denied by the trial court. It was only upon motion for reconsideration of the
defendants of such denial, reiterating the above grounds that the following order was
issued:

"Considering the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants on

January 14, 1965 and after thoroughly examining the arguments therein
contained, the Court finds the same to be meritorious and well-founded.

"WHEREFORE, the Order of this Court on December 8, 1964 is hereby

reconsidered by ordering the dismissal of the above entitled case.

"SO ORDERED.

"Quezon City, Philippines, January 29, 1965.” (p. 40, Record [p. 21,
Record on Appeal.)

Hence, this appeal where plaintiffs-appellants, the spouses Elcano, are presenting for
Our resolution the following assignment of errors:

"THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BY

UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF DEFENDANTS THAT –

"THE PRESENT ACTION IS NOT ONLY AGAINST BUT ALSO A VIOLATION

OF SECTION 1, RULE 107, NOW RULE 111, OF THE REVISED RULES OF
COURT, AND THAT SECTION 3(c) OF RULE 111, RULES OF COURT IS
INAPPLICABLE;

II

"THE ACTION IS BARRED BY A PRIOR JUDGMENT WHICH IS NOW FINAL

OR RES-ADJUDICATA;

III

"THE PRINCIPLES OF QUASI-DELICTS, ARTICLES 2176 TO 2194 OF THE

CIVIL CODE, ARE INAPPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE; and

IV

"THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

DEFENDANT MARVIN HILL BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED AS GUARDIAN
OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT THROUGH EMANCIPATION BY MARRIAGE."
(page 4, Record.)
It appears that for the killing of the son, Agapito, of plaintiffs-appellants, defendant-
appellee Reginald Hill was prosecuted criminally in Criminal Case No. 5102 of the
Court of First Instance of Quezon City. After due trial, he was acquitted on the ground
that his act was not criminal because of "lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake."
Parenthetically, none of the parties has favored Us with a copy of the decision of
acquittal, presumably because appellants do not dispute that such indeed was the
basis stated in the court's decision. And so, when appellants filed their complaint
against appellees Reginald and his father, Atty. Marvin Hill, on account of the death of
their son, the appellees filed the motion to dismiss above-referred to.
As We view the foregoing background of this case, the two decisive issues
presented for Our resolution are:
1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case wherein the action for civil liability was not reserved?
2. May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code be applied against
Atty. Hill, notwithstanding undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence
complained of, Reginald, though a minor, living with and getting subsistence
from his father, was already legally married?
The first issue presents no more problem than the need a reiteration and further
clarification of the dual character, criminal and civil, of fault or negligence as a source
of obligation which was firmly established in this jurisdiction in Barredo vs. Garcia, 73
Phil. 607. In that case, this Court postulated, on the basis of a scholarly dissertation
by Justice Bocobo on the nature of culpa aquiliana in relation to culpa criminal or delito
and mere culpa or fault, with pertinent citation of decisions of the Supreme Court of
Spain, the works of recognized civilians, and earlier jurisprudence of our own, that the
same given act can result in civil liability not only under the Penal Code but also under
the Civil Code. Thus, the opinion holds:

"The above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act may come
under both the Penal Code and the Civil Code. In that case, the action of
the agent was unjustified and fraudulent and therefore could have been
the subject of a criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a proper
subject of a civil action under article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is also to
be noted that it was the employer and not the employee who was being
[1]
sued." (pp. 615-616, 73 Phil.)

"It will be noticed that the defendant in the above case could have been
prosecuted in a criminal case because his negligence causing the death of
the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is therefore a clear
instance of the same act of negligence being a proper subject-matter
either of a criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a
crime or of an entirely separate and independent civil action for fault or
negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this
jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasi-delito or culpa aquiliana
under the Civil Code has been fully and clearly recognized, even with
regard to a negligent act for which the wrongdoer could have been
prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a
conviction, he could have been sued for this civil liability arising from his
[2]
crime." (p. 617, 73 Phil.)

"It is most significant that in the case just cited, this Court specifically
applied article 1902 of the Civil Code. It is thus that although J. V. House
could have been criminally prosecuted for reckless or simple negligence
and not only punished but also made civilly liable because of his criminal
negligence, nevertheless this Court awarded damages in an independent
civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code."
[3]
(p. 618, 73 Phil.)

"The legal provisions, authors, and cases already invoked should

ordinarily be sufficient to dispose of this case. But inasmuch as we are
announcing doctrines that have been little understood in the past, it might
not be inappropriate to indicate their foundations.

"Firstly, the Revised Penal Code in article 365 punishes not only reckless
but also simple negligence. If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910
of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not punished by law,
according to the literal import of article 1093 of the Civil Code, the legal
institution of culpa aquiliana would have very little scope and application
in actual life. Death or injury to persons and damage to property through
any degree of negligence - even the slightest - would have to be
indemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from a
crime. In such a state of affairs, what sphere would remain for cuasi-
delito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to impute to the lawmaker any
intention to bring about a situation so absurd and anomalous. Nor are we,
in the interpretation of the laws, disposed to uphold the letter that killeth
rather than the spirit that giveth life. We will not use the literal meaning
of the law to smother and render almost lifeless a principle of such
ancient origin and such full-grown development as culpa aquiliana or
cuasi-delito, which is conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to
 1910 of the Spanish Civil Code.

Contrary to an immediate impression one might get upon a reading of the

foregoing excerpts from the opinion in Garcia - that the concurrence of the Penal Code
and the Civil Code therein referred to contemplate only acts of negligence and not
intentional voluntary acts - deeper reflection would reveal that the thrust of the
pronouncements therein is not so limited, but that in fact it actually extends to fault or
culpa. This can be seen in the reference made therein to the Sentence of the
Supreme Court of Spain of February 14, 1919, supra, which involved a case of fraud
or estafa, not a negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain, in force
here at the time of Garcia, provided textually that obligations "which are derived from
acts or omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervene shall
be the subject of Chapter II, Title XV of this book (which refers to quasi-delicts.)" And it
is precisely the underlined qualification, "not punishable by law", that Justice Bocobo
emphasized could lead to an undesirable construction or interpretation of the letter of
the law that "killeth, rather than the spirit that giveth life" hence, the ruling that "(W)e
will not use the literal meaning of the law to smother and render almost lifeless a
principle of such ancient origin and such full-grown development as culpa aquiliana or
cuasi-delito, which is conserved and made enduring in articles 1902 to 1910 of the
Spanish Civil Code." And so, because Justice Bocobo was Chairman of the Code
Commission that drafted the original text of the new Civil Code, it is to be noted that
the said Code, which was enacted after the Garcia doctrine, no longer uses the term,
"not punishable by law, " thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa aquiliana
includes acts which are criminal in character or in violation of the penal law, whether
voluntary or negligent. Thus, the corresponding provision to said Article 1093 in the
new code, which is Article 1162, simply says, "Obligations derived from quasi-delicts
shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, (on quasi-
delicts) and by special laws." More precisely, a new provision, Article 2177 of the new
code provides:

"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."

According to the Code Commission: "The foregoing provision (Article 2177)

though at first sight startling, is not so novel or extraordinary when we consider the
exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a violation of the criminal
law, while the latter is a 'culpa aquiliana' or quasi-delict, of ancient origin, having
always had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence.
Such distinction between criminal negligence and 'culpa extra-contractual' or 'cuasi-
delito' has been sustained by decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain and maintained
as clear, sound and perfectly tenable by Maura, an outstanding Spanish jurist.
Therefore, under the proposed article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal
negligence, whether on reasonable doubt or not, shall not be a bar to a subsequent
civil action, not for civil liability arising from criminal negligence, but for damages due to
a quasi-delict or 'culpa aquiliana'. But said article forestalls a double recovery."
(Report of the Code Commission, p. 162.)
Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of
negligence, the same argument of Justice Bocobo about construction that upholds "the
spirit that giveth life" rather than that which is literal that killeth the intent of the
lawmaker should be observed in applying the same. And considering that the
preliminary chapter on human relations of the new Civil Code definitely establishes the
separability and independence of liability in a civil action for acts criminal in character
(under Articles 29 to 32) from the civil responsibility arising from crime fixed by Article
100 of the Revised Penal Code, and, in a sense, the Rules of Court, under Sections 2
and 3 (c), Rule 111, contemplate also the same separability, it is "more congruent with
the spirit of law, equity and justice, and more in harmony with modern progress", to
borrow the felicitous relevant language in Rakes vs. Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific Co., 7
Phil. 359, to hold, as We do hold, that Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or
negligence," covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also acts criminal in
character, whether intentional and voluntary or negligent. Consequently, a separate
civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not
allowed, if he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores,
and would be entitled in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming
the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the extinction of civil liability
referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability founded
on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act
considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a
declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has
not been committed by the accused. Briefly stated, We here hold, in reiteration of
Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be
[4]
punishable by law.
It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not
extinguished his liability for quasi-delict, hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant
action against him.
Coming now to the second issue about the effect of Reginald's emancipation by
marriage on the possible civil liability of Atty. Hill, his father, it is also Our considered
opinion that the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Hill is already free from responsibility
cannot be upheld.
 While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child
(Article 327, Civil Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place "by the
marriage of the minor (child)", it is, however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399,
emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or absolute. Thus "
(E)mancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
authority over the child's person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as
though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real
property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be
sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian."
Now, under Article 2180, "(T)he 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."
In the instant case, it is not controverted that Reginald, although married, was living
with his father and getting subsistence from him at the time of the occurrence in
question. Factually, therefore, Reginald was still subservient to and dependent on his
father, a situation which is not unusual.
It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa, the reason behind the joint
and solidary liability of parents with their offending child under Article 2180 is that it is
the obligation of the parent to supervise their minor children in order to prevent them
[5]
from causing damage to third persons. On the other hand, the clear implication of
Article 399, in providing that a minor emancipated by marriage may not, nevertheless,
sue or be sued without the assistance of the parents, is that such emancipation does
not carry with it freedom to enter into transactions or do any act that can give rise to
judicial litigation. (See Manresa, id., Vol. II, pp. 766-767, 776.) And surely, killing
someone else invites judicial action. Otherwise stated, the marriage of a minor child
does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it that the child, while still a minor,
does not give cause to any litigation, in the same manner that the parents are
answerable for the borrowings of money and alienation or encumbering of real
property which cannot be done by their minor married child without their consent. (Art.
399; Manresa, supra.)
Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill
notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald. However, inasmuch as it is
evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has
become merely subsidiary to that of his son.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the trial court is ordered
to proceed in accordance with the foregoing opinion. Costs against appellees.
Fernando, (Chairman), Antonio, and Martin, JJ., concur.
Aquino, J., see concurring opinion.
Concepcion, Jr., J., on leave.

[1]
Referring to Sentence of the Supreme Court of Spain of February 14, 1919.

[2]
Referring to Manzanares vs. Moreta, 38 Phil. 821.

[3]
Referring to Bernal et al. vs. House et al., 54 Phil. 327.

[4]
Parenthetically, Manresa seemingly holds the contrary view thus:

"Sin embargo, para no incurrir en error hay que tener en cuenta que los limites del
precepto contenido en el presente articulo son bastante mas reducidos, pues no se hallan
comprendidos en el todos los daños que pueden tener por causa la culpa o la negligencia.

"En efecto, examinando detenidamente la teoria general de la culpa y de la negligencia,

se observa que, tanto en una como en otra de dichas causas, hay tres generos o tres especies
distintas, a saber:

1. La que representa una accion u omision voluntaria por la que resulte incumplida una
obligacion anteriormente constituida.

2. La que sin existencia de una obligacion anterior produce un daño o perjuicio que,
teniendo su origen en un hecho ilicito, no reviste los caracteres de delito o falta; y

3. La que teniendo por origen un hecho que constituya delito o falta produce una
responsabilidad civil como accesoria de la responsabilidad criminal.

"La primera de estas tres especies de culpa o negligencia es siempre accesoria de una
obligacion principal, cuyo incumplimiento da origen a la teoria especial de la culpa en materia de
contratos, y el estudio de esta debe hacerse al examinar cada contrato, en especial, como lo
hicimos asi, analizando entonces los peculiares efectos de dicha culpa en cada uno de ellos.

"La tercera de las especies citadas es accesoria tambien, pues no puede concebirse su
existencia sin la de un delito o falta que la produzca. Es decir, que solo al lado de la
responsabilidad criminal puede subsistir esa responsabilidad civil y la obligacion proveniente de la
culpa, indicada como una consecuencia de la responsabilidad criminal, y, por consiguiente, su
examen y regulacion pertenecen al Derecho penal.

"Como consecuencia de ello, resulta que la unica especie de culpa y omision o

negligencia que puede ser y es materia del presente capitulo, es la segunda, o sea la que sin la
existencia de una obligacion anterior, y sin ningun antecedente contractual, produce un daño o
perjuicio que tiene su origen en una accion u omision culpable solo civilmente; es decir, que
siendo ilicita, no revista, sin embargo, los caracteres de un delito o falta por no estar penada por
la ley. Y aun dentro de estos limites hay que restringir aun mas los terminos o la materia propia
 de este articulo, el cual se refiere unicamente a la culpa o negligencia personales del obligado,
pero no a las que provienen de actos o de omisiones de personas distintas de este." (pp. 642-643,
Vol. XII, Manresa, Codigo Civil Español.)

[5]
"Nuestro Codigo no ha seguido la escuela italiana, sino que mas bien se ha inspirado en el criterio de la
doctrina francesa, puesto que impone la obligacion de reparar el daño causado en virtud de una
presuncion juris tantum de culpa por parte del que tiene bajo su autoridad o dependencia al
causante del daño, derivada del hecho de no haber puesto el cuidado y la vigilancia debida en los
actos de sus subordinados para evitar dicho resultado. Asi es que, segun el parrafo ultimo del art.
1,903, cesa dicha responsabilidad cuando se prueba que los obligados por los actos ajenos
emplearon toda la diligencia de un buen padre de familia. Luego no es la causa de la obligacion
impuesta la representacion, ni el interes, ni la necesidad de que haya quien responda del daño
causado por el que no tiene personalidad ni garantias de solvencia para responder por si, sino el
incumplimiento implicito o supuesto de los deberes de precaucion y de prudencia que imponen los
vinculos civiles que unen al obligado con las personas por quienes debe reparar el mal causado.
Por ese motivo coloca dicha obligacion entre las que provienen de la culpa o negligencia." (pp.
670-671, Manresa, Codigo Civil Español, Vol. XII.)

CONCURRING OPINION

AQUINO, J.:

I concur. Article 2176 of the Civil Code comprehends any culpable act, which is
blameworthy, when judged by accepted legal standards. "The idea thus expressed is
undoubtedly broad enough to include any rational conception of liability for the tortious
acts likely to be developed in any society." (Street, J. in Daywalt vs. Corporacion de
PP. Agustinos Recoletos, 39 Phil. 587, 600). See article 38, Civil Code and the ruling
that "the infant tortfeasor is liable in a civil action to the injured person in the same
manner and to the same extent as an adult" (27 Am. Jur. 812 cited by Bocobo, J., in
Magtibay vs. Tiangco, 74 Phil. 576, 579).

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: November 24, 2014

This page was dynamically generated by the E-Library Content Management System
Supreme Court E-Library