Salen vs. Balce

A father who has a minor child living in his company may be held subsidiarily liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the civil indemnity imposed upon that child in a criminal conviction, where the Revised Penal Code is silent on parental subsidiary liability for a minor over 15 who acted with discernment.

Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen, while Jose Balce is the father of Gumersindo Balce, a minor below 18 years of age who lived with him. The Revised Penal Code governs civil liability arising from criminal offenses, while Article 2180 of the Civil Code makes the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, responsible for damages caused by minor children who lived in their company. The case required the Court to determine whether that Civil Code provision could supply the subsidiary liability of a parent where the Revised Penal Code contained no express provision for a minor over 15 convicted of a crime.

Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera were the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen. Jose Balce was the father of Gumersindo Balce, who at the time was single, a minor below 18 years of age, and living with Jose.

Carlos Salen died from wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce. As a result, Gumersindo was accused and convicted of homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the heirs of the deceased an indemnity of P2,000.00.

Upon petition of the plaintiffs, the only heirs of the deceased, a writ of execution was issued for payment of the indemnity, but it was returned unsatisfied because Gumersindo was insolvent and had no property in his name. Plaintiffs then demanded from Jose Balce, Gumersindo's father, payment of the indemnity; Jose refused. On February 5, 1957, plaintiffs brought this action before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte to recover P2,000.00, with legal interest from July 18, 1952, plus attorney's fees and other incidental expenses.

The facts that mattered to the Supreme Court were that Gumersindo was a minor below 18 living with Jose, that he had been convicted of homicide, and that execution for the P2,000.00 indemnity was returned unsatisfied because he was insolvent and had no property in his name.

• Article 2180, Civil Code: Plaintiffs-appellants relied on Article 2180 of the Civil Code to hold Jose Balce liable for damages caused by his minor son Gumersindo, who lived in his company.
• Subsidiary Liability for Unsatisfied Indemnity: Plaintiffs maintained that because Gumersindo was insolvent and had no property in his name, his father should answer for the P2,000.00 indemnity imposed in the homicide case.

• Non-applicability of Article 2180: Jose Balce set up the defense that the law upon which plaintiffs predicated their right to recover does not apply because it refers to quasi-delicts and not to criminal cases.
• Exclusive Governance by Revised Penal Code: He argued that the civil liability of his son arose from criminal liability, so his subsidiary liability must be determined under the Revised Penal Code, not Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
• No Parental Subsidiary Liability Under the Code: Under Articles 101, 102, and 103 of the Revised Penal Code, no provision holds a father subsidiarily liable for the civil liability incurred by his minor son; by exclusio unius exclusio alterius, he cannot be held liable.

• Parental Subsidiary Liability: Whether Jose Balce, as father of the minor Gumersindo Balce who lived in his company, can be held subsidiarily liable for the P2,000.00 civil indemnity imposed upon Gumersindo in the homicide case.
• Applicable Law: Whether Article 2180 of the Civil Code applies to the father's liability notwithstanding that the civil liability arose from a criminal offense and the Revised Penal Code contains no express provision for parental subsidiary liability over a convicted minor.

• Parental Subsidiary Liability: Yes. The father is responsible under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for damages caused by minor children who lived in his company; the Revised Penal Code's silence on parental subsidiary liability for a convicted minor does not bar recovery.
• Applicable Law: Article 2180 applies. Although civil liability arising from a crime is generally governed by the Revised Penal Code, resort to the Civil Code is proper where the Code is silent, to avoid leaving the injured party without remedy.

• Parental Subsidiary Liability: The general rule that civil liability arising from a crime is governed by the Revised Penal Code was accepted, but the contention that the subsidiary liability of persons for acts of those under their custody must also be governed by that Code even absent a provision was rejected, because that would leave the transgression of a certain right without punishment or sanction. Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code makes a father civilly liable for acts committed by his son only if the son is an imbecile, insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15 who acted without discernment, because such a son is exempt from criminal liability. The purpose is not to leave the act unpunished but to attach civil liability to the person who has the delinquent minor under his legal authority or control. A minor over 15 who acts with discernment is not exempt from criminal liability, and the Code is silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents should he be convicted. In that case, resort should be had to the general law, the Civil Code. Article 2180 provides that the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by minor children who lived in their company. To hold that this provision does not apply because it only covers quasi-delicts would result in the absurdity that a parent may be subsidiarily liable for damage caused by mere negligence but not for damage caused with criminal intent. The void in the Revised Penal Code is subserved by Article 2180. Exconde vs. Capuno, where a father was held jointly and severally liable with his minor son for damages arising from a criminal act absent proof of diligence of a good father of a family, and Araneta vs. Arreglado, described as a typical case of parental subsidiary liability arising from the criminal act of a minor son, were cited. Accordingly, Jose Balce was ordered to pay the P2,000.00 indemnity.
• Applicable Law: The Revised Penal Code generally governs civil liability arising from crime, but it does not exclusively govern the subsidiary liability of parents where it has no provision. The trial court's reliance on exclusio unius exclusio alterius was rejected because applying it would leave a right without sanction. The Civil Code, as the general law, supplies the liability, and Article 2180 is the particular law governing the case. The dismissal was therefore reversed.

• Parental subsidiary liability under Article 2180 of the Civil Code — The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by minor children who lived in their company. This liability may attach even when the civil liability arises from a criminal offense, where the Revised Penal Code is silent on parental subsidiary liability, as when the minor is over 15 and acted with discernment. The parent may be relieved only by proving the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. In this case, Jose Balce was held liable for the P2,000.00 indemnity imposed on his minor son Gumersindo after execution was returned unsatisfied due to Gumersindo's insolvency.
• Resort to the Civil Code to supply a void in the Revised Penal Code — Civil liability arising from a crime is generally governed by the Revised Penal Code, but where that Code has no provision governing the subsidiary liability of parents for a convicted minor over 15 who acted with discernment, the Civil Code's general provisions apply. The Court adopted this to avoid leaving the injured party without remedy.
• Absurdity avoided by applying Article 2180 to criminal offenses — If Article 2180 were held inapplicable to obligations arising from criminal offenses, a parent could be subsidiarily liable for damage caused by mere negligence but not for damage caused with criminal intent. The Court refused this result and treated Article 2180 as subserving the void in the Revised Penal Code.
• Exclusio unius exclusio alterius — The trial court invoked this principle to argue that because the Revised Penal Code specifies certain cases of parental or subsidiary liability, no other parental subsidiary liability exists. The Supreme Court rejected its application to defeat liability where the Code is silent and the Civil Code supplies the general rule.

• "While we agree with the theory that, as a rule, the civil liability arising from a crime shall be governed by the provisions of the Revised Penal Code, we disagree with the contention that the subsidiary liability of persons for acts of those who are under their custody should likewise be governed by the same Code even in the absence of any provision governing the case, for that would leave the transgression of certain right without any punishment or sanction in the law." — This states the Court's ratio for rejecting the trial court's exclusive reliance on the Revised Penal Code.
• "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." — This supplies the controlling rule for the case.
• "The particular law that governs this case is Article 2180, the pertinent portion of 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."" — This identifies the provision applied.
• "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 offenses, 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." — This explains why Article 2180 must apply despite the criminal origin of the liability.

• Exconde vs. Capuno, 101 Phil., 843 — Cited as a case in point. The Court there held a father jointly and severally liable with his minor son for damages arising from the son's criminal act, because the father failed to prove the diligence of a good father of a family. The citation supported the application of Article 2180 to parental liability arising from a criminal offense.
• Araneta vs. Arreglado, 104 Phil., 524; 55 Off. Gaz. [9] 1961 — Cited as another case in point and described as a typical case of parental subsidiary liability arising from the criminal act of a minor son. In that case, the Court affirmed the award of damages against the parents but increased the indemnity.

• Article 100, Revised Penal Code — Provides that a person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The Court cited it as the general rule on civil liability arising from crime.
• Article 101, Revised Penal Code — Makes a father civilly liable for acts committed by his son if the son is an imbecile, insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15 who acted without discernment, unless the father shows no fault or negligence. The Court explained that this provision does not cover a minor over 15 who acted with discernment and was convicted.
• Article 102, Revised Penal Code — Establishes subsidiary liability for keepers and tavern-keepers. The trial court cited it to argue that the Code's subsidiary liability is limited.
• Article 103, Revised Penal Code — Extends the subsidiary liability under Article 102 to employers, teachers, persons, and corporations engaged in industry for felonies committed by their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices, or employees in the discharge of their duties. The trial court cited it in support of its exclusio unius argument.
• Article 12, subdivisions 1, 2 and 3, Revised Penal Code — Lists exemptions from criminal liability for an imbecile, insane, under 9 years of age, or over 9 but under 15 who acted without discernment. The Court cited it to explain why Article 101 imposes civil liability on the father in those cases.
• Article 2180, Civil Code — Provides that the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by minor children who lived in their company. The Court applied this provision to hold Jose Balce liable for the indemnity imposed on his minor son.
• Article 2176, Civil Code — Defines obligations arising from quasi-delict. The trial court cited it to argue that Article 2180 applies only to quasi-delicts.
• Article 2177, Civil Code — States that responsibility for fault or negligence under Article 2176 is separate and distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code. The trial court cited it in support of its position.
• Article 1903, last paragraph, Spanish Civil Code — Cited in Exconde vs. Capuno as the basis for relieving a parent from liability by proving the diligence of a good father of a family. The Court quoted this in its discussion of parental liability.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.