G.R. No. L-14414; April 27, 1960
SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. JOSE BALCE, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Plaintiffs-appellants Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen, who died from wounds inflicted by Gumersindo Balce, the legitimate and minor son (below 18 years old) of defendant-appellee Jose Balce. Gumersindo Balce, who was single and living with his father at the time, was convicted of homicide and sentenced to pay an indemnity of P2,000.00 to the heirs of the deceased. A writ of execution for this indemnity was returned unsatisfied as Gumersindo Balce was insolvent and had no property. Plaintiffs then demanded payment from defendant, as father, and upon his refusal, instituted this action to recover the P2,000.00 indemnity.

ISSUE

Whether the defendant-appellee, as father, can be held subsidiarily liable for the civil indemnity arising from the criminal act (homicide) of his minor son, who was over 15 years old and acted with discernment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and held the defendant-appellee subsidiarily liable.
The trial court erred in ruling that the subsidiary liability for a criminal act is governed solely by the Revised Penal Code and that Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies only to quasi-delicts. While the civil liability from a crime is generally governed by the Revised Penal Code, the subsidiary liability of parents for acts of minors under their custody is not fully covered by it.
Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code imposes civil liability on parents only for acts of minors who are exempt from criminal liability (e.g., imbeciles, insane, under 9, or 9-15 acting without discernment). It is silent regarding minors over 15 who act with discernment and are criminally liable, like Gumersindo Balce. This gap in the penal law is filled by Article 2180 of the Civil Code, which states: “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 otherwise would lead to the absurd result that a parent is liable for a child’s negligent act (quasi-delict) but not for a more serious intentional criminal act. The Court cited precedents (Exconde vs. Capuno and Araneta vs. Arreglado) where parents were held jointly and severally liable for damages caused by the criminal acts of their minor children living with them, pursuant to Article 2180.
Therefore, defendant-appellee Jose Balce is ordered to pay appellants the sum of P2,000.00, with legal interest from the filing of the complaint, and the costs.