Salen vs.

Balce
SEVERINO SALEN and ELENA SALBANERA vs. JOSE BALCE
G.R. No. L-14414. 27 April 1960.
Appeal from a judgment of the CFI of Camarines Norte.
Bautista Angelo, J.:

Facts: Plaintiffs are the legitimate parents of Carlos Salen who died from wounds caused by Gumersindo
Balce, a legitimate son of defendant who was then single, 18 yrs old and was living with defendant. As a
result of Carlos Salen's death, Gumersindo Balce was accused and convicted of homicide and was
sentenced to imprisonment and to pay the amount of P2,000.00. Plaintiffs brought this action against
defendant before CFI to recover the sum of P2,000.00, with legal interest. Defendant, in his answer, set
up the defense that the law upon which plaintiffs predicate their right to recover does not here apply for
the reason that law refers to quasi-delicts and not to criminal cases. CFI sustained the theory of
defendant.

Issue: WON appellee can be held subsidiary liable to pay the indemnity in accordance with Art. 2180 of
the Civil COde.

Ruling: Judgment reversed.

Art 2180 Civil Code applies in the case at bar. To hold otherwise 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 RPC (art.101) is subserved by this particular provision of our
Civil Code, as may be gleaned from some recent decisions of the SC which cover equal or identical cases.

Carlos Salen (single) died due to wounds caused by Gumersindo Balce, 18,
single and living with Jose Balce, his father. Gumersindo was convicted of
homicide and was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay Carlos heirs
indemnity. But Gumersindo was insolvent,hence Severino Salen and Elena
Salbanera (Salens), the parents (and heirs) of Carlos, demanded from Jose to
pay but he refused. Hence the suit.
TC: dismissed. Sustained Joses theory that the civil liability of Gumersindo
arises from his criminal liability and therefore must be determined under the
RPC, and not under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, which only applies to
obligations arising form quasi-delicts. There is no law which holds the father
either primarily or subsidiarily liable for the civil liability incurred by the son
who is a minor of 18 years.

ISSUE:WON Jose Balce can be held SUBSIDIARILY liable to pay the indemnity
his son was sentenced topay in the criminal case against him (the son).

RULING:

Yes. Jose Balce is ordered to pay the indemnity. TC reversed.

As a rule, the civil liability arising form a crime shall be governed by the RPC.
But since the RPC is silent as to the subsidiary liability of parents for a minor
over 15, who acts with discernment, resort should be made to the general
law which is the Civil Code. And Art.2180 is the law that applies. To hold that
Art. 2180 applies only to quasi-delicts will result in an absurdity that while for
an act where mere negligence intervenes, the father or mother may beheld
subsidiarily liable, no liability would attach if the damage is caused with
criminal intent. The void that apparently exists in the RPC is subserved by
2180 of the Civil Code as may be gleaned from some recent SC decisions.