Elcano v. Hill

 Elcano v. Hill, 

77 SCRA 98 

1977

DOCTRINE/S: (1) Under 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.

(2) Article 2180, provides: “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”

FACTS: 

The son of Petitioners Pedro and Patricia Elcano, Agapito was killed by

respondent Reginald Hill. The latter was prosecuted criminally in the CFI of Quezon City

and 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.”

The present case is an appeal from the order of the CFI of Quezon City in Civil Case No.

Q-8102 (Pedro Elcano et. al. v. Reginald Hill et. al) dismissing upon motion by the

defendants the complaint of the plaintiffs for recovery of damages from Reginald Hill for

the killing of Agapito Elcano.

Reginald Hill et al. filed a motion to dismiss with The CFI of Quezon City based on the

following grounds:

1. The present action is a violation of Section 1, Rule 107 of the Revised Rules of

Court (Now Rule 111)

2. The action is barred by a prior judgment which is now final

3. The complaint has no cause of action against defendant Marvin Hill because he

was relieved as guardian of the other defendant through emancipation by

marriage.

The CFI of Quezon City first denied the motion but upon motion for reconsideration after

such denial, the court issued an order dismissing the case. Hence this appeal

ISSUES: 

(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 reversed?

(2) May Article 2180 par. 2 and 3 of the Civil Code be applied against Atty. Hill

notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of,

Reginald though a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his father was legally

married?

HELD: 

(1) No. His acquittal in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasidelict

hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him. Article 2177 of the

New Civil 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.

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, the Supreme Court held that culpa

aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.

(2) Yes. Article 2180 par. 2 and 3 of the Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill.

Under Article 2180, it provides: “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.”

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.

Note: In the view of the Supreme Court in this case, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill

notwithstanding the emancipation by marriage of Reginald. However since Reginald is

already of age, as a matter of equity, the Supreme Court held that the liability of Atty. Hill

has become merely subsidiary to that of his son.