8/9/2019 Tortsdigest_PaleyanvBangkili

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tortsdigestpaleyanvbangkili 1/2

LINDAY PALEYAN, for her own and behalf of her Minor children vs.CARLOS BANGKILI and IC!ORIA BANGKILI G"R" No" L#$$$%& '(l) &*, +-+

INDIREC! LIABILI!Y .OR IN!EN!IONAL AC!S

.AC!S/

  Plaintiffs are the widow and children of Balos Paleyan, who was killed bydefendant Carlos Bangkili. He was then accused of the crime of Homicide with lessserious physical injuries. At the time of the commission of the offense Carlos Bangkiliwas a minor. pon his plea of guilty, he was sentenced accordingly, but the decisionmade no pronouncement as to the civil indemnity. !he plaintiffs filed the an action for damages against Carlos Bangkili and his mother, "ictoria Bangkili.

  !he Court orders the di01i00al of the complaint against the defendan2ic2oria Ban34ili  and renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against thedefendant Carlos Bangkili. #n dismissing the complaint against "ictoria Bangkili thecourt held that under Article $%$ of the &evised Penal Code "ictoria Bangkili c ould not be held civilly liable for the criminal act of her minor son, who was already 19 years of age at the time he committed the offense; and that Article 2180 of the New Civil Codewas not alicable for it covers only obligations arising from !uasi"delicts and not tothose arising from crimes# 

ISS5E/ 

'hether or not the latter, as the mother of Carlos who had him in her custody at thetime he committed the offense, should be adjudged liable with him for the amount which

he was sentenced to pay, considering that he was then a minor of $( years.

R5LING/

  !he particular law that governs this case is Article )$*%+ "The father and, incase of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for damages caused by the minor children who live in their company."  !o hold that this provision doesnot apply to the instant case because it only covers obligations which arise from uasi-delicts and not obligations which arise from criminal offenses, would result in theabsurdity 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 wouldattach if the damage is caused with criminal intent.

'here the allegations in the complaint show that herein appellee was sueddirectly under the said provision, in that she failed and neglected to e/ercise the proper 

8/9/2019 Tortsdigest_PaleyanvBangkili

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tortsdigestpaleyanvbangkili 2/2

care and vigilance over her ward and minor child and as a conseuence of such failureand neglect, the said Carlos Bangkili committed the wrongful act herein complained of.!he appellee here agrees that Article )$*% is applicable in this case, but submits that itsapplication should be rela/ed, considering that her son, although living with her, wasalready $( years of age and hence mature enough to have a mind of his own.  !hi0 fac2

i0 no2 a le3al defen0e, howe6er, and doe0 no2 e7e182 2he a88ellan2 fro1 her re08on0ibili2) a0 8aren2 and na2(ral 3(ardian" Ar2icle $+9* doe0 no2 8ro6ide for an) e7e182ion e7ce82 8roof 2ha2 2he defendan2 8aren2 :ob0er6ed all 2he dili3enceof a 3ood fa2her of a fa1il) 2o 8re6en2 da1a3e": !here i0 no 0(ch 8roof in 2hi0ca0e"

  'H0&012&0, the judgment appealed from is re6er0ed with respect to defendant-appellee "ictoria Bangkili, and she is hereby adjudged liable solidarily with her co-defendant for the amounts awarded in said judgment, with costs.