1/29/2017

G.R.No.L24803

TodayisSunday,January29,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION
G.R.No.L24803May26,1977
PEDROELCANOandPATRICIAELCANO,intheircapacityasAscendantsofAgapitoElcano,deceased,
plaintiffsappellants,
vs.
REGINALDHILL,minor,andMARVINHILL,asfatherandNaturalGuardianofsaidminor,defendants
appellees.
Cruz&Avecillaforappellants.
MarvinR.Hill&Associatesforappellees.

BARREDO,J.:
AppealfromtheorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofQuezonCitydatedJanuary29,1965inCivilCaseNo.Q
8102,PedroElcanoetal.vs.ReginaldHilletal.dismissing,uponmotiontodismissofdefendants,thecomplaint
ofplaintiffsforrecoveryofdamagesfromdefendantReginaldHill,aminor,marriedatthetimeoftheoccurrence,
and his father, the defendant Marvin Hill, with whom he was living and getting subsistence, for the killing by
Reginald of the son of the plaintiffs, named Agapito Elcano, of which, when criminally prosecuted, the said
accusedwasacquittedonthegroundthathisactwasnotcriminal,becauseof"lackofintenttokill,coupledwith
mistake."
Actually,themotiontodismissbasedonthefollowinggrounds:
1.Thepresentactionisnotonlyagainstbutaviolationofsection1,Rule107,whichisnowRuleIII,
oftheRevisedRulesofCourt
2.Theactionisbarredbyapriorjudgmentwhichisnowfinalandorinresadjudicata
3.ThecomplainthadnocauseofactionagainstdefendantMarvinHill,becausehewasrelievedas
guardianoftheotherdefendantthroughemancipationbymarriage.
(P.23,Record[p.4,RecordonAppeal.])
wasfirstdeniedbythetrialcourt.Itwasonlyuponmotionforreconsiderationofthedefendantsofsuchdenial,
reiteratingtheabovegroundsthatthefollowingorderwasissued:
Considering the motion for reconsideration filed by the defendants on January 14, 1965 and after
thoroughly examining the arguments therein contained, the Court finds the same to be meritorious
andwellfounded.
WHEREFORE,theOrderofthisCourtonDecember8,1964isherebyreconsideredbyorderingthe
dismissaloftheaboveentitledcase.
SOORDERED.
QuezonCity,Philippines,January29,1965.(p.40,Record[p.21,RecordonAppeal.)
Hence,thisappealwhereplaintiffsappellants,thespousesElcano,arepresentingforOurresolutionthefollowing
assignmentoferrors:
THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING THE CASE BY UPHOLDING THE CLAIM OF
DEFENDANTSTHAT
I
THEPRESENTACTIONISNOTONLYAGAINSTBUTALSOAVIOLATIONOFSECTION1,RULE
107,NOWRULE111,OFTHEREVISEDRULESOFCOURT,ANDTHATSECTION3(c)OFRULE
111,RULESOFCOURTISAPPLICABLE
II
THEACTIONISBARREDBYAPRIORJUDGMENTWHICHISNOWFINALORRESADJUDICTA
III
THE PRINCIPLES OF QUASIDELICTS, ARTICLES 2176 TO 2194 OF THE CIVIL CODE, ARE
INAPPLICABLEINTHEINSTANTCASEand
IV
THAT THE COMPLAINT STATES NO CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT MARVIN HILL
BECAUSE HE WAS RELIEVED AS GUARDIAN OF THE OTHER DEFENDANT THROUGH
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_24803_1977.html

1/5

1/29/2017

G.R.No.L24803

EMANCIPATIONBYMARRIAGE.(page4,Record.)
It appears that for the killing of the son, Agapito, of plaintiffsappellants, defendant appellee Reginald Hill was
prosecutedcriminallyinCriminalCaseNo.5102oftheCourtofFirstInstanceofQuezonCity.Afterduetrial,he
wasacquittedonthegroundthathisactwasnotcriminalbecauseof"lackofintenttokill,coupledwithmistake."
Parenthetically,noneofthepartieshasfavoredUswithacopyofthedecisionofacquittal,presumablybecause
appellantsdonotdisputethatsuchindeedwasthebasisstatedinthecourt'sdecision.Andso,whenappellants
filedtheircomplaintagainstappelleesReginaldandhisfather,Atty.MarvinHill,onaccountofthedeathoftheir
son,theappelleesfiledthemotiontodismissabovereferredto.
AsWeviewtheforegoingbackgroundofthiscase,thetwodecisiveissuespresentedforOurresolutionare:
1. Is the present civil action for damages barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein the
actionforcivilliability,wasnotreversed?
2.MayArticle2180(2ndandlastparagraphs)oftheCivilCodeheappliedagainstAtty.Hill,notwithstandingthe
undisputedfactthatatthetimeoftheoccurrencecomplainedof.Reginald,thoughaminor,livingwithandgetting
subsisteneefromhisfather,wasalreadylegallymarried?
The first issue presents no more problem than the need for a reiteration and further clarification of the dual
character, criminal and civil, of fault or negligence as a source of obligation which was firmly established in this
jurisdiction in Barredo vs. Garcia, 73 Phil. 607. In that case, this Court postulated, on the basis of a scholarly
dissertation by Justice Bocobo on the nature of culpaaquiliana in relation to culpa criminal or delito and mere
culpaorfault,withpertinentcitationofdecisionsoftheSupremeCourtofSpain,theworksofrecognizedcivilians,
andearlierjurisprudenceofourown,thatthesamegivenactcanresultincivilliabilitynotonlyunderthePenal
CodebutalsoundertheCivilCode.Thus,theopinionholds:
The, above case is pertinent because it shows that the same act machinist. come under both the
PenalCodeandtheCivilCode.Inthatcase,theactionoftheagentkillethunjustifiedandfraudulent
and therefore could have been the subject of a criminal action. And yet, it was held to be also a
propersubjectofacivilactionunderarticle1902oftheCivilCode.Itisalsotobenotedthatitwas
theemployerandnottheemployeewhowasbeingsued.(pp.615616,73Phil.).1
Itwillbenoticedthatthedefendantintheabovecasecouldhavebeenprosecutedinacriminalcase
because his negligence causing the death of the child was punishable by the Penal Code. Here is
therefore a clear instance of the same act of negligence being a proper subject matter either of a
criminal action with its consequent civil liability arising from a crime or of an entirely separate and
independent civil action for fault or negligence under article 1902 of the Civil Code. Thus, in this
jurisdiction, the separate individuality of a cuasidelitoorculpa aquiliana, under the Civil Code has
beenfullyandclearlyrecognized,evenwithregardtoanegligentactforwhichthewrongdoercould
have been prosecuted and convicted in a criminal case and for which, after such a conviction, he
couldhavebeensuedforthiscivilliabilityarisingfromhiscrime.(p.617,73Phil.)2
Itismostsignificantthatinthecasejustcited,thisCourtspecificallyappliedarticle1902oftheCivilCode.It
isthusthatalthoughJ.V.Housecouldhavebeencriminallyprosecutedforrecklessorsimplenegligenceand
not only punished but also made civilly liable because of his criminal negligence, nevertheless this Court
awardeddamagesinanindependentcivilactionforfaultornegligenceunderarticle1902oftheCivilCode.(p.
618,73Phil.)3

Thelegalprovisions,authors,andcasesalreadyinvokedshouldordinarilybesufficienttodisposeof
thiscase.Butinasmuchasweareannouncingdoctrinesthathavebeenlittleunderstood,inthepast,
itmightnotheinappropriatetoindicatetheirfoundations.
Firstly,theRevisedPenalCodeinarticles365punishesnotonlyrecklessbutalsosimplenegligence.
If we were to hold that articles 1902 to 1910 of the Civil Code refer only to fault or negligence not
punishedbylaw,accordinglytotheliteralimportofarticle1093oftheCivilCode,thelegalinstitution
ofculpaaquilianawouldhaveverylittlescopeandapplicationinactuallife.Deathorinjurytopersons
anddamagetopropertythroughanydegreeofnegligenceeventheslightestwouldhavetobe
Idemnified only through the principle of civil liability arising from a crime. In such a state of affairs,
what sphere would remain for cuasidelito or culpa aquiliana? We are loath to impute to the
lawmaker any intention to bring about a situation so absurd and anomalous. Nor are we, in the
interpretationofthelaws,disposedtoupholdtheletterthatkillethratherthanthespiritthatgivethlife.
Wewillnotusetheliteralmeaningofthelawtosmotherandrenderalmostlifelessaprincipleofsuch
ancientoriginandsuchfullgrowndevelopmentasculpaaquilianaorcuasidelito,whichisconserved
andmadeenduringinarticles1902to1910oftheSpanishCivilCode.
Secondary, to find the accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is
required,whileinacivilcase,preponderanceofevidenceissufficienttomakethedefendantpayin
damages. There are numerous cases of criminal negligence which can not be shown beyond
reasonabledoubt,butcanbeprovedbyapreponderanceofevidence.Insuchcases,thedefendant
canandshouldbemaderesponsibleinacivilactionunderarticles1902to1910oftheCivilCode.
Otherwise. there would be many instances of unvindicated civil wrongs. "Ubi jus Idemnified
remedium."(p.620,73Phil.)
Fourthly,becauseofthebroadsweepoftheprovisionsofboththePenalCodeandtheCivilCodeon
this subject, which has given rise to the overlapping or concurrence of spheres already discussed,
andforlackofunderstandingofthecharacterandefficacyoftheactionforculpaaquiliana,therehas
grownupacommonpracticetoseekdamagesonlybyvirtueofthecivilresponsibilityarisingfroma
crime, forgetting that there is another remedy, which is by invoking articles 19021910 of the Civil
Code.Althoughthishabitualmethodisallowedby,ourlaws,ithasneverthelessrenderedpractically
uselessandnugatorythemoreexpeditiousandeffectiveremedybasedonculpaaquilianaorculpa
extracontractual. In the present case, we are asked to help perpetuate this usual course. But we
believeitishightimewepointedouttotheharmsdonebysuchpracticeandtorestoretheprinciple
ofresponsibilityforfaultornegligenceunderarticles1902etseq.oftheCivilCodetoitsfullrigor.Itis
hightimewecausedthestreamofquasidelictorculpaaquilianatoflowonitsownnaturalchannel,
sothatitswatersmaynolongerbedivertedintothatofacrimeunderthePenalCode.Thiswill,itis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_24803_1977.html

2/5

1/29/2017

G.R.No.L24803

believed, make for the better safeguarding or private rights because it realtor, an ancient and
additionalremedy,andforthefurtherreasonthatanindependentcivilaction,notdependingonthe
issues,limitationsandresultsofacriminalprosecution,andentirelydirectedbythepartywrongedor
hiscounsel,ismorelikelytosecureadequateandefficaciousredress.(p.621,73Phil.)
Contrarytoanimmediateimpressiononemightgetuponareadingoftheforegoingexcerptsfromtheopinionin
Garcia that the concurrence of the Penal Code and the Civil Code therein referred to contemplate only acts of
negligence and not intentional voluntary acts deeper reflection would reveal that the thrust of the
pronouncementsthereinisnotsolimited,butthatinfactitactuallyextendstofaultorculpa.Thiscanbeseenin
thereferencemadethereintotheSentenceoftheSupremeCourtofSpainofFebruary14,1919,supra,which
involved a case of fraud or estafa, not a negligent act. Indeed, Article 1093 of the Civil Code of Spain, in force
hereatthetimeofGarcia,providedtextuallythatobligations"whicharederivedfromactsoromissionsinwhich
faultornegligence,notpunishablebylaw,interveneshallbethesubjectofChapterII,TitleXVofthisbook(which
referstoquasidelicts.)"Anditispreciselytheunderlinequalification,"notpunishablebylaw",thatJusticeBocobo
emphasizedcouldleadtoanultimoconstructionorinterpretationoftheletterofthelawthat"killeth,ratherthan
the spirit that giveth lift hence, the ruling that "(W)e will not use the literal meaning of the law to smother and
render almost lifeless a principle of such ancient origin and such fullgrown development as culpa aquiliana or
quasidelito,whichisconservedandmadeenduringinarticles1902to1910oftheSpanishCivilCode."Andso,
because Justice Bacobo was Chairman of the Code Commission that drafted the original text of the new Civil
Code,itistobenotedthatthesaidCode,whichwasenactedaftertheGarciadoctrine,nolongerusestheterm,
11 not punishable by law," thereby making it clear that the concept of culpa aquiliana includes acts which are
criminal in character or in violation of the penal law, whether voluntary or matter. Thus, the corresponding
provisions to said Article 1093 in the new code, which is Article 1162, simply says, "Obligations derived from
quasidelictoshallbegovernedbytheprovisionsofChapter2,TitleXVIIofthisBook,(onquasidelicts) and by
speciallaws."Moreprecisely,anewprovision,Article2177ofthenewcodeprovides:
ART.2177.Responsibilityforfaultornegligenceundertheprecedingarticleisentirelyseparateand
distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot
recoverdamagestwiceforthesameactoromissionofthedefendant.
AccordingtotheCodeCommission:"Theforegoingprovision(Article2177)throughatfirstsightstartling,isnotso
novel or extraordinary when we consider the exact nature of criminal and civil negligence. The former is a
violationofthecriminallaw,whilethelatterisa"culpaaquiliana"orquasidelict,ofancientorigin,havingalways
had its own foundation and individuality, separate from criminal negligence. Such distinction between criminal
negligenceand"culpaextracontractual"or"cuasidelito"hasbeensustainedbydecisionoftheSupremeCourtof
Spainandmaintainedasclear,soundandperfectlytenablebyMaura,anoutstandingSpanishjurist.Therefore,
under the proposed Article 2177, acquittal from an accusation of criminal negligence, whether on reasonable
doubtornot,shallnotbeabartoasubsequentcivilaction,notforcivilliabilityarisingfromcriminalnegligence,
butfordamagesduetoaquasidelictor'culpaaquiliana'.Butsaidarticleforestallsadoublerecovery.",(Reportof
theCode)Commission,p.162.)
Although, again, this Article 2177 does seem to literally refer to only acts of negligence, the same argument of
JusticeBacoboaboutconstructionthatupholds"thespiritthatgivethliftratherthanthatwhichisliteralthatkilleth
theintentofthelawmakershouldbeobservedinapplyingthesame.Andconsideringthatthepreliminarychapter
onhumanrelationsofthenewCivilCodedefinitelyestablishestheseparabilityandindependenceofliabilityina
civil action for acts criminal in character (under Articles 29 to 32) from the civil responsibility arising from crime
fixedbyArticle100oftheRevisedPenalCode,and,inasense,theRulesofCourt,underSections2and3(c),
Rule111,contemplatealsothesameseparability,itis"morecongruentwiththespiritoflaw,equityandjustice,
andmoreinharmonywithmodernprogress"toborrowthefelicitousrelevantlanguageinRakesvs.Atlantic.Gulf
and Pacific Co., 7 Phil. 359, to hold, as We do hold, that Article 2176, where it refers to "fault or negligencia
coversnotonlyacts"notpunishablebylaw"butalsoactscriminalincharacter,whetherintentionalandvoluntary
ornegligent.Consequently,aseparatecivilactionliesagainsttheoffenderinacriminalact,whetherornotheis
criminallyprosecutedandfoundguiltyoracquitted,providedthattheoffendedpartyisnotallowed,ifheisactually
chargedalsocriminally,torecoverdamagesonbothscores,andwouldbeentitledinsucheventualityonlytothe
biggerawardofthetwo,assumingtheawardsmadeinthetwocasesvary.Inotherwords,theextinctionofcivil
liabilityreferredtoinPar.(e)ofSection3,Rule111,refersexclusivelytocivilliabilityfoundedonArticle100ofthe
Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasidelict only and not as a
crime is not estinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not
happenedorhasnotbeencommittedbytheaccused.Brieflystated,Weherehold,inreiterationofGarcia,that
culpaaquilianaincludesvoluntaryandnegligentactswhichmaybepunishablebylaw.4
Itresults,therefore,thattheacquittalofReginalHillinthecriminalcasehasnotextinguishedhisliabilityforquasi
delict,hencethatacquittalisnotabartotheinstantactionagainsthim.
Coming now to the second issue about the effect of Reginald's emancipation by marriage on the possible civil
liability of Atty. Hill, his father, it is also Our considered opinion that the conclusion of appellees that Atty. Hill is
alreadyfreefromresponsibilitycannotbeupheld.
Whileitistruethatparentalauthorityisterminateduponemancipationofthechild(Article327,CivilCode),and
underArticle397,emancipationtakesplace"bythemarriageoftheminor(child)",itis,however,alsoclearthat
pursuanttoArticle399,emancipationbymarriageoftheminorisnotreallyfullorabsolute.Thus"(E)mancipation
bymarriageorbyvoluntaryconcessionshallterminateparentalauthorityoverthechild'sperson.Itshallenable
the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or
encumberrealpropertywithouttheconsentofhisfatherormother,orguardian.Hecansueandbesuedincourt
onlywiththeassistanceofhisfather,motherorguardian."
NowunderArticle2180,"(T)heobligationimposedbyarticle2176isdemandablenotonlyforone'sownactsor
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. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are
responsibleforthedamagescausedbytheminorchildrenwholiveintheircompany."Intheinstantcase,itisnot
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,asituationwhichisnotunusual.
It must be borne in mind that, according to Manresa, the reason behind the joint and solidary liability of
presuncion with their offending child under Article 2180 is that is the obligation of the parent to supervise their
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_24803_1977.html

3/5

1/29/2017

G.R.No.L24803

minor children in order to prevent them from causing damage to third persons. 5 On the other hand, the clear
implicationofArticle399,inprovidingthataminoremancipatedbymarriagemaynot,nevertheless,sueorbesuedwithout
theassistanceoftheparents,isthatsuchemancipationdoesnotcarrywithitfreedomtoenterintotransactionsordoany
act that can give rise to judicial litigation. (See Manresa, Id., Vol. II, pp. 766767, 776.) And surely, killing someone else
invites judicial action. Otherwise stated, the marriage of a minor child does not relieve the parents of the duty to see to it
thatthechild,whilestillaminor,doesnotgiveanswerablefortheborrowingsofmoneyandalienationorencumberingofreal
propertywhichcannotbedonebytheirminormarriedchildwithouttheirconsent.(Art.399Manresa,supra.)

Accordingly, in Our considered view, Article 2180 applies to Atty. Hill notwithstanding the emancipation by
marriageofReginald.However,inasmuchasitisevidentthatReginaldisnowofage,asamatterofequity,the
liabilityofAtty.Hillhasbecomemilling,subsidiarytothatofhisson.
WHEREFORE,theorderappealedfromisreversedandthetrialcourtisorderedtoproceedinaccordancewith
theforegoingopinion.Costsagainstappellees.
Fernando(Chairman),Antonio,andMartin,JJ.,concur.
ConcepcionJr.,J,isonleave.
Martin,J,wasdesignatedtositintheSecondDivision.

SeparateOpinions

AQUINO,J,concurring:
Article 2176 of the Civil Code comprehends any culpable act, which is blameworthy, when judged by accepted
legal standards. "The Idea thus expressed is undoubtedly board enough to include any rational conception of
liability for the tortious acts likely to be developed in any society." (Street, J. in Daywalt vs. Corporacion de PP.
AgustinosRecoletos,39Phil.587,600).Seearticle38,CivilCodeandtherulingthat"theinfanttortfeasorisliable
inacivilactiontotheinjuredpersoninthesamemannerandtothesameextentasanadult"(27Am.Jur.812
citedbyBocobo,J.,inMagtibayvs.Tiangco,74Phil.576,579).

SeparateOpinions
AQUINO,J,concurring:
Article2176oftheCivilCodecomprehendsanyculpableact,whichisblameworthy,whenjudgedbyaccepted
legalstandards."TheIdeathusexpressedisundoubtedlyboardenoughtoincludeanyrationalconceptionof
liabilityforthetortiousactslikelytobedevelopedinanysociety."(Street,J.inDaywaltvs.CorporaciondePP.
AgustinosRecoletos,39Phil.587,600).Seearticle38,CivilCodeandtherulingthat"theinfanttortfeasorisliable
inacivilactiontotheinjuredpersoninthesamemannerandtothesameextentasanadult"(27Am.Jur.812
citedbyBocobo,J.,inMagtibayvs.Tiangco,74Phil.576,579).
Footnotes
1ReferringtoSentenceoftheSupremeCourtofSpainofFebruary14,1919.
2ReferringtoManzanaresvs.Moreta,38Phil.821.
3ReferringtoBernaletal,vs.Houseetal.,54Phil.327.
4Parenthetically,Manresaseeminglyholds.thecontraryviewthus:
"Sinembargo,paranoineurrirenerrorhayquetenerencuentaqueloslineage.delprecepts
contenidoenelpresentearticulosonbastantemasreducidos,puesnosehallancomprendidosenel
todoslosdatiosquepuestenerporcausalaculpaolanegligencia.
"Enefecto,examinandodetenidamentelaterminosgeneraldelaculpaydelanegligencia.se
observeque,tantoenunacomoenotradedichascausas,haytresgenerosootresespecies
distintas,asaber:
1.Laquerepresentsunaaccionuomisionvoluntariaporlaqueresultsincumplidaunaobligacion
anteriormenteconstituida.
2.Laquesinexistenciadeunaobligacionanteriorproduceundanooperjuicioque,teniendosu
origenenunhechoilicito,norevisteloscaracteresdedelitoofaltay
3.Laqueteniendopororigenunhechoqueconstituyadelitoofaltaproduceunaresponsabilidad
civilcomoaccesoriadelaresponsabilidadcriminal.
"Laprimeradeestastresespeciesdeculpaonegligenciaessiempreaccesoriadeunaobligacion
principal,cuyoincumplimientodaorigenalaterminosespecialdelaculpaenmateriadecontratos,y
eleatudiodeestadebeharmsalexaminarcadacontrato,enespecial,comolohicimosasi,
analizandoentoceslospeculiaresefectosdedichaculpaencadaunodeellos.
"Laterceradelasespeciescitadasesaccesoriatambien,puesnopuedeconcebirsesuexistencia
sinladeundelictoofaltsquelaproduzca.Esdecir,quesoloalladodelaresponsabilidadcriminal
puedesupuestoesaresponsabilidadcivilylaobligacionprovenientedelaculpa,ineurrircomouna
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_24803_1977.html

4/5

1/29/2017

G.R.No.L24803

consecuenciadelaresponsabilidadcriminal,y,porconsiguente,suexamenyregulacionperusal.al
Derechopenal.
"Comoconsecuenciadeello,resultsquelaunicaespeciedeculpayomisionesonegligenciaque
puedeseryesmeanwhile.'delpresentecapitulo,eslaseparability,osealaquesinlaexistenciade
unaobligacionanterior,ysinningunantecedentscontractual,produceundanooperjuicoquetiene
suorigenenunaaccionuomisionculpablesolocivilmenteasdecir,quesiendoilicita,norevistesin
embargo,loscaracteresdeundelitoofaltapornoestarpenadaporlaley.Yaundentrodeestos
lineagehayquerestringiraunmaslosterminosolamateriapropriadeestearticulo,elcualse
refiereunicamentealaculpaonegligenciapersonatesdelobligado,peronoalasqueprudenciade
actosodeomisionesdepersons.,distintasdeeste."(pp.642643,Vol.XII,Manresa,CodigoCivil
Espanol.)
5"NuestroCodigonohaseguidolaescuelaitaliana,sinoquemasbiensehainstantaneous,enel
criteriodeladoctrinafullgrownpuestoqueimponelaobligaciondereparar,eldanocausadoen
virtuddeunapresuncionjuristecumdeculpaporpartedelquetienebajosuautoridadodependecia
alcausantedeldaho,derivadadelhicimosdenohaberpuestoelcuidadoylavinculosdebidaenlos
actosdesussubordinadosparaevitardichoresultado.Asiesque,segunelparrafoultimodelart.
1,903,cesadicharesponsabilidadcuandosepruebaquelosobligadosporlosactosajenos
emplearontodaladiligenciadeunbuenpadredefamilia.Luegonoeslacausadelaobligacion
impuestalarepresentacion,nielinteres,nilanecesidaddequehayaquienesrespondadeldano
causadoporelquenotienepersonalidadingarantiasdespecialist.pararesponsabilidadporsiendo
sinoelincumplimientoimplicitoosupuestodelosdeberesdeprecaucionydeprudenciaque
impuestalosvinculoscivilesqueunicamentealobligadoconlaspersons.,porquienesdebe
representacion,elmalcausado,Poresemotivocolocadichaobligacionentrelasqueprudenciade
laculpaofnegligentj(pp.670671,Manresa,CodigoCivilEspanol,Vol.XII.)
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1977/may1977/gr_24803_1977.html

5/5