Case Digest (A.C. No. 10697)
Facts:
On February 5, 1957, Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera, legitimate parents and sole heirs of the late Carlos Salen, filed suit against Jose Balce before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte to recover ₱2,000, representing the civil indemnity imposed on their son’s killer, plus legal interest and attorney’s fees. The victim, Carlos Salen, had been fatally wounded on July 18, 1952 by Gumersindo Balce, defendant’s son, who was a single minor above fifteen years and living with his father. In the criminal proceedings, Gumersindo was convicted of homicide and ordered to pay the ₱2,000 indemnity. A writ of execution issued in favor of the Salens returned unsatisfied due to the son’s insolvency. Plaintiffs then demanded payment from Jose Balce, who refused, prompting the present action. The trial court dismissed the complaint, holding that civil liability arising from a criminal offense is governed exclusively by the Revised Penal Code, and since Article 101 of that Code onl...Case Digest (A.C. No. 10697)
Facts:
- Parties and Nature of the Action
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera, legitimate parents and sole heirs of Carlos Salen.
- Defendant-Appellee: Jose Balce, father and guardian of Gumersindo Balce, convicted killer of Carlos Salen.
- Relief Sought: Recovery of ₱2,000.00 indemnity, with legal interest from July 18, 1952, plus attorney’s fees and incidental expenses.
- Underlying Events and Procedural History
- On July 18, 1952, Carlos Salen was killed by Gumersindo Balce. Gumersindo, a minor under 18 living with defendant, was convicted of homicide and ordered to pay ₱2,000.00 as indemnity.
- Execution against Gumersindo’s property returned unsatisfied due to insolvency.
- Plaintiffs demanded payment from Jose Balce under Civil Code liability for minors; defendant refused.
- On February 5, 1957, plaintiffs filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. Defendant answered that Civil Code Art. 2180 applies only to quasi-delicts, not to criminal offenses, and invoked Penal Code provisions limiting parental liability.
- The trial court sustained defendant’s defense, dismissed the complaint with costs, and plaintiffs appealed.
Issues:
- Can a father be held subsidiarily liable to pay the indemnity imposed on his minor son for a criminal act under the Civil Code?
- Does Civil Code Article 2180, which makes parents responsible for damages caused by minors living in their company, apply to obligations arising from criminal offenses or only to quasi-delicts?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)