Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    CD - 9. Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill 77 Scra 98

    Uploaded by

    Myka
    Reginald Hill, a minor, caused a death in a vehicular accident. He was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. The victim's family then filed a civil case against both Reginald and his father Marvin under Article 2180. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the criminal acquittal does not bar the civil case, as civil liability from crimes is separate from liability for quasi-delicts. 2) While emancipation by marriage terminates parental authority, it is not full emancipation and parents can still be liable under Article 2180. 3) However, as Reginald was now an adult, the father's liability would only be subsidiary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CD - 9. Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill 77 Scra 98

    Uploaded by

    Myka
    1K views1 page
    Reginald Hill, a minor, caused a death in a vehicular accident. He was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. The victim's family then filed a civil case against both Reginald and his father Marvin under Article 2180. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the criminal acquittal does not bar the civil case, as civil liability from crimes is separate from liability for quasi-delicts. 2) While emancipation by marriage terminates parental authority, it is not full emancipation and parents can still be liable under Article 2180. 3) However, as Reginald was now an adult, the father's liability would only be subsidiary.

    Original Description:

    torts case

    Original Title

    Cd_9. Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill 77 Scra 98

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Reginald Hill, a minor, caused a death in a vehicular accident. He was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. The victim's family then filed a civil case against both Reginald and his father Marvin under Article 2180. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the criminal acquittal does not bar the civil case, as civil liability from crimes is separate from liability for quasi-delicts. 2) While emancipation by marriage terminates parental authority, it is not full emancipation and parents can still be liable under Article 2180. 3) However, as Reginald was now an adult, the father's liability would only be subsidiary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views1 page

    CD - 9. Elcano and Elcano vs. Hill and Hill 77 Scra 98

    Uploaded by

    Myka
    Reginald Hill, a minor, caused a death in a vehicular accident. He was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. The victim's family then filed a civil case against both Reginald and his father Marvin under Article 2180. The Supreme Court ruled that 1) the criminal acquittal does not bar the civil case, as civil liability from crimes is separate from liability for quasi-delicts. 2) While emancipation by marriage terminates parental authority, it is not full emancipation and parents can still be liable under Article 2180. 3) However, as Reginald was now an adult, the father's liability would only be subsidiary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    transportation LAW

    A.Y. 2018-2019
    CASE TITLE: ELCANO VS. HILL
    G.R. NO/DATE: 77 SCRA 98
    DOCTRINE: Civil Liability from Quasi Delicts vs Civil Liability from Crimes

    FACTS:

    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.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Marvin Hill may be held civilly liable under Article 2180.

    HELD:

    Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. A
    separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted
    and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is actually
    charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such eventuality
    only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In other words, the
    extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers exclusively to civil liability
    founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered
    as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case
    that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Briefly
    stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which may be punishable by law.
    While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil
    Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place “by the marriage of the minor child”, it is,
    however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really full or
    absolute. Thus “Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority
    over the child’s person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but
    he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or
    mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or
    guardian.” Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill – the SC however ruled since at the time of
    the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvin’s liability should be subsidiary only – as a matter of
    equity.

    You might also like