University of the Philippines College of Law

1-D

Topic Quasi-delict defined

Case No. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977
Case Name ELCANO v. HILL
Ponente BARREDO, J.

DOCTRINE

- Culpa aquiliana also includes criminal acts, whether voluntary or negligent.

o Compare the Old Civil Code provision with the New Civil Code provision, which did away with the
specification in the OCC that the negligent act/omission is “not punishable by law”
 Old Civil Code:
 ART. 1093. Those which are derived from acts or omissions in which fault or
negligence, not punishable by law, intervenes shall be subject to the provisions of
Chapter II, Title XVI of this book.
 New Civil Code
 ARTICLE 1162. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts shall be governed by the
provisions of Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)

- Acquittal from criminal negligence, whether or not for reasonable doubt, does not extinguish civil liability
based on quasi-delict. Neither shall it bar a subsequent action to recover based on quasi-delict.

- Because the accused is a minor, his parents’ civil liability subsists in spite of emancipation by marriage.

SUMMARY

Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald
but Reginald was acquitted for “lack of intent coupled with mistake.” Elcano then filed a civil action against
Reginald and his dad (Marvin Hill) for damages based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil
action is barred by his son’s acquittal in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been
extinguished by the fact that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage. The Court ruled
that a separate civil action is not barred by a previous acquittal in a criminal action, and that the father is still
civilly liable for his minor, married son’s actions, albeit subsidiarily.

RELEVANT FACTS

Defendant Reginald Hill killed Agapito Elcano, the son of plaintiffs, and a criminal complaint was instituted against
him. He was tried and acquitted, for “lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake.” Petitioners then filed a complaint
for recovery of damages against Reginald Hill, a minor, and Atty. Marvin Hill, as father and natural guardian of said
minor. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was first denied by the trial court but upon motion for reconsideration of
the defendants, petitioner’s action for recovery was dismissed by the trial court for three reasons:
(1) The present action is not only against but a violation of section 1, Rule 107, which is now Rule III, of the
Revised Rules of Court;
(2) The action is barred by a prior judgment which is now final and or in res judicata;
(3) The complaint had no cause of action against defendant Marvin Hill, because he was relieved as guardian
of the other defendant through emancipation by marriage.

ISSUE/S
 University of the Philippines College of Law
1-D

(1) W/N the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case wherein
the action for civil liability was not reversed; W/N the action had been barred by res judicata. NO & NO
(2) W/N Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code 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? YES

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the present civil action for NO. The present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal
damages is barred by the acquittal of of Reginald in the criminal case. Firstly, there is a distinction as regards
Reginald in the criminal case wherein the proof required in a criminal case and a civil case. To find the
the action for civil liability was not accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable
reversed. 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.

W/N Article 2180 (2nd and last
paragraphs) of the Civil Code 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?
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.

RULING

However, in as much as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the liability of Atty. Hill has
become merely subsidiary to that of his son.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the trial court is ordered to proceed in accordance with the
foregoing opinion. Costs against appellees.