Salen v. Balce

  Salen v. Balce, 

107 Phil. 748 

1960

DOCTRINE: Art. 2180 covers not only obligations which arise from quasi-delicts but also

those which arise from criminal offenses. 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.

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 Carlos Salen's death, Gumersindo 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 Court of First Instance (CFI) of

Camarines Norte 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.

The CFI sustained the theory of defendant that there is no law which holds the father

either primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civil liability incurred by the son who is a minor

of 18 years. By the principle of exclusio unus exclusio ulterius, the defendant in this case

cannot he held subsidiary liable for the civil liability of Gumersindo Balce who has been

convicted of homicide for the killing of the plaintiff's son Carlos Salen.

ISSUES:

Whether appellee can be held subsidiary liable to pay the indemnity of P2,000.00 which

his son was sentenced to pay in the criminal case filed against him.

HELD:

YES. While the Supreme Court agree with the theory that, as a rule, the civil liability

arising from a crime shall be governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, it

disagreed with the contention that the subsidiary liability of persons for acts of those who

are under their custody should likewise be governed by the same Code even in the

absence of any provision governing the case, for that would leave the transgression of

certain rights without any punishment or sanction in the law

The particular law that governs this case is Article 2180, the pertinent portion of which

provides: "The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible

for damages caused by the minor children who lived in their company." To hold that this

provision does not apply to the instant case because it only covers obligations which arise

from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, 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.