Liability

a. Vicarious Liability (Art. 2180)

i.Parents and Guardians

Exconde v. Capuno, GR L-10134, June 29, 1957

Elcano v. Hill GR L-24803, May 26, 1977

Facts of the Case:

Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal complaint
was instituted against him but he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because
of lack of intent to kill, couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of
damages against defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his
father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and getting subsistence, for the same killing.
A motion to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City denied the
motion. Nevertheless, the civil case was finally dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case.

2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code may 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 already legally married.

Ruling of the Court:

1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal
case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof required in a criminal case and a civil case. To
find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in
a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages.
Furthermore, a civil case for damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted
from a criminal act. As such 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.

2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill. Although parental
authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child, emancipation by marriage is not absolute, i.e.
he can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. As in the
present case, killing someone else contemplated judicial litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply to
Atty. Hill.However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the
liability of Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.

ISSUES:

W/N the civil action should be barred by the acquittal of criminal action - NO

W/N the Civil Code can be applied to Atty. Marvin Hill even though Reginald is already married -YES

HELD: order appealed from is reversed

1. NO.

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 crime.

If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not
punished by law, accordingly 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

to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while
in a civil case, preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. .
Otherwise. there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus Idemnified
remedium."

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.

in reiteration of Garcia, that culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be
punishable by law

It results, therefore, that the acquittal of Reginal 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.

2. YES

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."

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 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 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

Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to
that of his son.

Bahia v. Litonjua, 30 Phil 624

Tamargo v. CA GR 85044, June 3, 1992

Sps. Libi v. IAC, GR 70890, Sept. 18, 1992

ii. Owners and Managers of Establishments

Cangco v. Manila Railroad, 38 Phil 768

Phil. Rabbit v. American Forwarders, 63 SCRA 231

Fil. Broadcasting v. AMEC, 448 SCRA 435

Filamer v. IAC, 212 SCRA 637

Jayme v. Apostol, GR 163609, Nov. 27, 2008

Mercury Drug v. Huang, GR 172122, June 22, 2007

iii. State

Meritt v. Gov't, 34 PHil 311

Rosete v. Auditor-General, 81 Phil 453

Fontanillas v. Maliamanm, GR 55963, Dec. 1, 1989 and Feb. 27, 1991

NIA v. Fontanilla, 179 SCRA 685

iv. Teachers and Heads of Academic Establishments

Amadora v. CA, GR L-47745, April 15, 1988

Palisoc v. Brillantes, GR L-29025, Oct. 4, 1971

St. Mary's v. Capistranos, 376 SCRA 473

St. Francis v. CA, GR 82465, Feb. 25, 1991

PSBA v. CA, GR 84698, Feb. 4, 1992