PEDRO ELCANO and PATRICIA ELCANO, in their capacity as Ascendants of AgapitoElcano,

deceased,plaintiffs-appellants,
vs.
REGINALD HILL, minor, and MARVIN HILL, as father and Natural Guardian of said minor, defendants-
appellees.
G.R. No. L-24803 [May 26, 1977]

Facts of the Case:

Respondent Reginald Hill killed the son of the plaintiffs named Agapito Elcano. A criminal complaint was
instituted against him but he was acquitted on the ground that his act was not criminal, because of lack
of intent to kill, couple with mistake. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a complaint for recovery of damages
against defendant Reginald Hill, a minor, married at the time of the occurrence, and his father,
the defendant Marvin Hill, with who he was living and getting subsistence, for the same killing. A motion
to dismiss was filed by the defendants. The Court of First Instance of Quezon City denied the motion.
Nevertheless, the civil case was finally dismissed upon motion for reconsideration.

Issues:

1. WON the present civil action for damages is barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case.

2. WON Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code may be applied against Atty. Hill,
notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of. Reginald, though
a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his father, was already legally married.

Ruling of the Court:

1. No, the present civil action for damages is not barred by the acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case.
Firstly, there is a distinction as regards the proof required in a criminal case and a civil case. To find the
accused guilty in a criminal case, proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is required, while in a civil case,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to make the defendant pay in damages. Furthermore, a civil
case for damages on the basis of quasi-delict does is independently instituted from a criminal act. As
such the acquittal of Reginald Hill in the criminal case has not extinguished his liability for quasi-delict,
hence that acquittal is not a bar to the instant action against him.

2. Yes, the above mentioned provision may still be applied against Atty Marvin Hill. Although parental
authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child, emancipation by marriage is not absolute, i.e.
he can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother or guardian. As in the
present case, killing someone else contemplated judicial litigation, thus, making Article 2180 apply to
Atty. Hill. However, inasmuch as it is evident that Reginald is now of age, as a matter of equity, the
liability of Atty. Hill has become milling, subsidiary to that of his son.