Exconde vs.

Capuno
Facts:
Dante Capuno, 15 yrs. old, a member of the Boy Scouts Organization and a student
of the Bilintawak Elementary School attended a parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal in
Laguna upon instruction of the city school's supervisor. From the school, Dante, with
other students, boarded a jeep and when it started to run, he took hold of the wheel
and drove it while the driver sat on his left side. They have not gone far when the
jeep turned turtle and two of its passengers, Amado Ticzon and Isidore Caperia,
died as a consequence. It further appears that Delfin Capuno, father of Dante, was
not with his son at the time of the accident, nor did he know that his son was going
to attend a parade. He only came to know it when his son told him after the
accident that he attended the parade upon instruction of his teacher.
Dante was accused of double homicide through reckless imprudence for the death
of Isidoro and Amado in the CFI. During the trial, Sabina Exconde, as mother of the
deceased Isidoro, reserved her right to bring a separate civil action for damages.
After trial, Dante was found guilty of the crime charged. CA affirmed.
In line with her reservation, Sabina filed the present action against Delfin and his
son Dante asking for damages in the amount of P2,959.00 for the death of her son.
Defendants set up the defense that if any one should be held liable for the death of
Isidoroa, he is Dante and not his father Delfin because at the time of the accident,
the former was not under the control, supervision and custody, of the latter. This
defense was sustained by the lower court and, as a consequence it only convicted
Dante to pay the damages claimed in the complaint. From decision, plaintif
appealed to the Court of Appeals but the case was certified to us on the ground that
the appeal only involves questions of law.
Issue:
WON Delfin Capuno can be held civilly liable, jointly and severally with his son
Dante, for damages resulting from the death of Isidoro Caperia caused by the
negligent act of minor Dante Capuno.
Held:
Yes. Delfin is jointly and severally liable with Dante to plaintif for the sum of
P2,959.00 as damages.
Art. 1903 provides that "The obligation impossed by the next preceding articles is
enforceable not only for personal acts and omissions, but also for those of persons
for whom another is responsible.
The father, and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are liable for any
damages caused by the minor children who live with them.

Finally, teachers or directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages caused
by their pupils or apprentices while they are under their custody."

Dante was then a student of the Balintawak Elementary School and as part of his
extra-curricular activity, he attended the parade upon instruction of the city school's
supervisor. And it was in connection that Dante boarded a jeep with some
companions and while driving it, the accident occurred. In the circumstances, it is
clear that neither the head of that school, nor the city school's supervisor, could be
held liable for the negligent act of Dante because he was not then a student of an
institute of arts and trades as provided by law.
The civil liability which the law impose upon the father, and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children
who live with them, is obvious. This is necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the "duty of
supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them and instructing
them in proportion to their means", while, on the other hand, gives them the "right
to correct and punish them in moderation" (Articles 154 and 155, Spanish Civil
Code). The only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they
prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
the damage(Article 1903, last paragraph, Spanish Civil Code). This defendants failed
to prove.

Salen vs. Balce

Facts:
Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera (plaintifs) are the legitimate parents of Carlos
Salen who died single from wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce, a legitimate son
of Jose Balce (defendant). At the time, Gumersindo was a minor below 18 years of
age, and was living with defendant. As a result of Carlos' death, Gumersindo was
accused and convicted of homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay
the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P2,000.00. Upon petition of plaintif, a
writ of execution was issued for the payment of the indemnity but it was returned
unsatisfied because Gumersindo was insolvent and had no property in his name.
Thereupon, plaintifs demanded upon defendant, father of Gumersindo, the
payment of the indemnity the latter has failed to pay, but defendant refused, thus
causing plaintifs to institute the present action.
Defendant, in his answer, set up the defense that the law upon which plaintifs
predicate their right to recover does not here apply for the reason that law refers to
quasi-delicts and not to criminal cases.
CFI ruled in favor of defendant. The CFI ruled that there is no law which holds the
father either primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civiliability inccured by the son
who is a minor of 8 years. Under Art. 101, the father is civilly liable for the acts
committed by his son if the latter is an imbecile, or insane, or under 9 years of age
or over 9 but under 15, who has acted without discernment. Under Art. 102, only in
keepers and tavern-keepers are held subsidiarily liable and under Art. 103, the
subsidiary liability established in Art. 102 shall apply only to "employers, teachers,
persons and corporations engaged in any kind of industry for felonies committed by
their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees in the discharge of their
duties." By the principle of exclusio unus exclusio ulterius, the defendant in this
case cannot be held subsidiary liable for the civil liability of Gumersindo.
Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, relied by the plaintif's, is not applicable to the case at
bar. It applies to obligations which arise from quasi-delicts and not obligations which
arise from criminal ofenses. Civil liability arising from criminal negligence or
ofenses is governed by the provisions of the Penal Code and civil liability arising
from civil negligence is governed by the provision of the Civil Code. And according
to Art. 2177, the 'responsibility for fault of negligence under Art. 2176 is entirely

separate and distinct from the civil liabilty arising from negligence under the Penal
Code.
Issue:
WON Jose Balce can be held subsidiary liable to pay the indemnity of P2,000.00
which his son was sentenced to pay in the criminal case filed against him.

Held:
Yes. The court reversed the ruling of the CFI.
It is true that under Art. 101 of the Revised Penal Code, a father is made civilly liable
for the acts committed by his son only if the latter is an imbecile, an insane, under 9
years of age, or over 9 but under 15 years of age, who acts without discernment,
unless it appears that there is no fault or negligence on his part. This is because a
son who commits the act under any of those conditions is by law exempt from
criminal liability (Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, Revised Penal Code). The idea is
not to leave the act entirely unpunished but to attach certain civil liability to the
person who has the delinquent minor under his legal authority or control. But a
minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, for
which reason the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he
stand convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the general law which is our
Civil Code.
The particular law that governs this case is Article 2180, which provides: "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 that this provision
does not apply to the instant case because it only covers obligations which arise
from quasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal ofenses, would
result in the absurdity that while for an act where mere negligence intervenes the
father or mother may stand subsidiarily liable for the damage caused by his or her
son, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with criminal intent. Verily, the
void that apparently exists in the Revised Penal Code is subserved by this particular
provision of our Civil Code.

Fuellas vs. Cadano

Facts:
Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-appellant Agapito Fuellas, were
both 13 years old. They were classmates at St. Mary's High School. In the afternoon
of September 16, 1954, while Pepito was studying his lessons in the classroom, Rico
took the pencil of one Ernesto Cabanok and surreptitiously placed it inside the
pocket of Pepito. When Ernesto asked Rico to return the pencil, it was Pepito who
returned the same, an act which angered Rico, who held the neck of Pepito and
pushed him to the floor. Villamira, a teacher, separated Rico and Pepito and told
them to go home. Rico went ahead, with Pepito following.
When Pepito had just gone down of the schoolhouse, he was met by Rico, still in an
angry mood. Angelito Aba, a classmate, told the two to shake hands. Pepito
extended his hand to Rico. Instead of accepting the profer to shake hands, Rico
held Pepito by the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito out of balance and pushed
him to the ground. Pepito fell on his right side with his right arm under his body,
whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. While Rico was in such position, Pepito
suddenly cried out "My arm is broken." Rico then got up and went away. Pepito was
helped by others to go home. That same evening Pepito was brought to the Lanao
General Hospital for treatment. An X-Ray taken showed that there was a complete
fracture of the right forearm which necessitated plaster casting.
More than a month after Pepito's release from the hospital, the plaster cast was
removed. And up to the last day of hearing of the case, the right forearm of Pepito
was seen to be shorter than the left forearm, still in bandage and could not be fully
used.
Plaintif-appellee Elpidio Cadano filed two separate actions: (1) Civil case for
damages against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico Fuellas and (2) Criminal
Case against Rico Fuellas for serious physical injuries. They were tried jointly.

A judgment of conviction in the criminal case was rendered, finding Rico Fuellas
guilty of the ofense charged. No pronouncement as to his civil liability was made,
the trial judge having ruled that the same shall be determined in the civil case.
Later, the same court, rendered judgment in the civil case making defendant
therein, now appellant Agapito Fuellas, liable under Art. 2180 of the new Civil Code.
The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by reducing the moral damages to
P3,000.00. An appeal was taken to this tribunal solely on questions of law.
Agapito contends that according to Art. 2180, the act of the minor must be one
wherein "fault or negligence" is present; and that there being no fault or negligence
on the part of Rico, but deliberate intent, the above mentioned article is not
applicable, for the existence of deliberate intent in the commission of an act
negatives the presence of fault or negligence in its commission. Appellant,
therefore, submits that the CA erred in holding him liable for damages for the
deliberate criminal act of his minor son.
Issue:
WON Agapito should be held liable.
Held:
Yes.
The civil law liability under Article 2180 is not respondeat superior but the
relationship of pater familias which bases the liability of the father ultimately on his
own negligence and not on that of his minor son and that if an injury is caused by
the fault or negligence of his minor son, the law presumes that there was
negligence on the part of his father.
The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children
who live with them, is obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the "duty of
supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them in proportion to
their means", while on the other hand, gives them the "right to correct and punish
them in moderation" (Arts. 134 and 135, Spanish Civil Code). The only way by which
they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage (Art. 1903, last
paragraph, Spanish Civil Code).