ELCANO v.

HILL
G.R. No. L-24803

Date of Promulgation: October 14, 1977

Ponente: Barredo, J.
Plaintiffs: Pedro Elcano and Patricia Elcano
Defendants: Reginald Hill and Marvil Hill

Facts:
Plaintiffs pray for recovery of damages from defendant Reginald Hill, a minor who was living
with and being supported by his father, Atty. Marvin Hill. Reginald had been prosecuted
criminally in Criminal Case No. 5102 for killing Agapito Elcano, plaintiffs’ son, but was
acquitted because of a “lack of intent to kill, coupled with mistake”.

Issues/Held:
1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the
criminal case – NO
2. WON Article 2180(2) and (8) of the Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill – NO

Doctrines:
1. Art. 1162, CC. Obligations derived from quasi-delicts are governed by the provisions of
Chapter 2, Title XVII of this Book, and by special laws. (1093a)

2. Art. 2180(1), (2), (8), CC. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only
for one's own acts or 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 for the
damages caused by the minor children living in their company.

The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein mentioned
prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage.
(1903a)

Ratio:
1. In Barredo v. Garcia, the Court established that the same negligent act can result in civil
liability arising from a crime under the RPC, or an action for culpa aquiliana under the
CC. The latter was based on Article 1093 of the old CC, which treated of “acts or
omissions in which fault or negligence, not punishable by law, intervene”. In order not to
limit the scope of the said provision, Justice Bocobo, then Chairman of the Code
Commission for the new Civil Code, chose to omit the qualification “not punishable by
law” in the present Article 1162.

Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether
or not he is criminally prosecuted and found guilty and acquitted, provided that the
offended party is not allowed a double recovery.
 2. Under Article 2180 of the CC, fathers are responsible for the damages caused by the
minor children living in their company. Although Reginald was married when he killed
Agapito, the former was still living with and dependent on his father. However, since
Reginald has come of age, Atty. Hill’s liability has also become subsidiary.

Decision:
Decision is reversed.