Amadora Vs. Court Of Appeals

Amadora vs. Court of Appeals| G.R No. L-47745| April 15, 1988 | Cruz, J. Nature: Petitioners:

Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the CA. Jose, Loreta, Jose Jr, Pantaleon, Jose III, Lucy, Rosalinda, Perfecto, Serrec, Vicente, Maria Tiscalina, all surnamed Amadora; Norma Ylaya Respondents: Hon. Court of Appeals; Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos; Victor Lluch; Sergio Damaso, Jr.; Celestino Dicon; Aniano Abellana; Pablito Daffon (thru his parents); and Rolando Valencia (thru his guardian atty) TOPIC Torts > Persons Liable > Vicarious Liability > Teachers SUMMARY 17yo Alfredo Amadora went to school after the end of the semester to pass a physics project. He was shot dead by Pablito Daffon in school premises (both were students). Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Petitioners Amadora’s filed a civil action against Respondents (school, admins, and teacher). The CFI held Respondents liable, which the CA reversed. SC held that none of the respondents are liable. It is the teacher-incharge, not the school, who must answer for the student’s torts, in the same way as parents are responsible for a child under their custody. If at all, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers under the general principle of respondent superior, but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. However, there was not enough proof here to hold that the physics teacher (Celestino Dicon) was the teacher-in-charge at the time of the incident, therefore he was held to be not liable as well. Article 2180 should apply to ALL schools, whether academic or non-academic/vocational. General rule: if school is academic, the teachers shall be liable for the acts of their students. Exception: if school is nonacademic/vocational, the heads are liable. Teacher-in-charge: one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned.

FACTS  Alfredo Amadora, 17yo, was a high school student of Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos [CSJR for brevity, but the case didn’t use this abbreviation]. On April 13, 1972, 3 days before graduation, he went to the school to submit a Physics project. On the same day, he was shot by Pablito Daffon in the school auditorium and died.  Daffon was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence. Petitioners Amadora’s filed a civil action for damages against the school, the rector, the high school principal, the dean of the boys, the physics teacher, and Daffon. o CFI of Cebu held the Respondents liable. CA reversed.  Petitioners: their son was in school to finish his science experiment as a prerequisite to graduation, hence he was under Respondents’ custody.  CA: Article 2180 was not applicable bcos: o CSJR was not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning o Alfredo Amadora and Daffon were not in custody of the school at the time of the incident as the semester had ended o No clear identification of the fatal gun o Respondents had exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury  [See notes for jurisprudential history] ISSUE: WON the Respondents (school, it’s heads, and the teacher) should be liable? – NO [jump to Issue #3] 1) WON Article 2180 applies? – YES  Provision should apply to ALL schools, whether academic (like CSJR) or non-academic/vocational (establishment of arts and trades).  General rule: if school is academic, the teachers shall be liable for the acts of their students  Exception: if school is non-academic/vocational, the heads are liable  No sound reason for limiting the application of the provision to teachers of arts and trades and not to academic ones. There is no substantial distinction between them insofar as torts committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected from the teacher over students under their control/supervision.

 The reason for the disparity is historical. Before, the heads of schools of arts and trades exercised closer tutelage over his pupils than the heads of academic schools. The latter is not as involved with his students and exercised only administrative duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealing with the students.  This distinction is no longer relevant at present in view of the expansion of schools of arts and trades and the diminution of the direct and personal contract of their heads with the students. 2) WON Alfredo and Daffon were under Respondents’ custody at the time of the incident? – YES  Custody is not co-terminus with the semester. A student is in the custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its premises.  As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues.  Alfredo was in CSJR’s custody because he was at the school for a legitimate purpose (pass a project). 3) WON the Respondents are liable? – NO  Based on Article 2180, it is the teacher-in-charge, not the school, who must answer for the student’s torts, in the same way as parents are responsible for a child under their custody.  If at all, the school may be held to answer for the acts of its teachers under the general principle of respondent superior, but then it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias.  Teacher-in-charge: one designated by the dean, principal, or other administrative superior to exercise supervision over the pupils in the specific classes or sections to which they are assigned.  It is not necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher be physically present and in a position to prevent it. Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control but refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such influence.  The defense of exercise of diligence is also available to the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades. As long as the defendant can show that he had taken the necessary precautions to prevent the injury complained of, he can exonerate himself from the liability imposed by Article 2180.  The rector, high school principle, and the dean of boys can’t be held liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge, and only exercised a general authority over the student body.  The evidence of the parties not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of the offending student was. The mere fact that Alfredo had gone to school in connection with his physics report did not necessarily make the physics teacher, Celestino Dicon, the teacher-in-charge of Daffon.  Even assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge, there is no showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing discipline upon Daffon. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he was not supposed or required to report to school on that day.  It has not been established that the injury was caused by Dicon’s laxness in enforcing discipline upon Daffon. On the contrary, Respondents have proved that they had exercised due diligence, through the enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining that discipline.  The dean of the boys, Sergio Damaso, could have been held liable if the identity of the gun was established.  Petitioners contend that the gun used to kill Alfredo was the same gun that Damaso confiscated from Jose Gumban on April 7. The gun was returned by Damaso to Gumban without making any report or any further action. But the court held that there was no proof that the gun was the same one that killed Alfredo. Thus, even if Damaso was negligent in failing to act on the gun, nothing links him to the shooting of Alfredo.  CSJR cannot be held directly liable because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the other private respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged with the custody of the offending student or has been remiss in the discharge of his duties in connection with such custody. DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, without any pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

MELENCIO-HERRARA, J., concurring and dissenting: 



“I concur, except with respect to the restricted meaning given the term ‘teacher’” o Whoever stands in loco parentis will have the same duties and obligations as parents whenever in such a standing. Custody means their protective and supervisory custody. Article 349 enumerates the person who stand in loco parentis and thereby exercise substitute parental authority (and therefore liable), which includes respondents (teachers and heads. o However, the responsibility shall cease when they prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. o The school, as their employer, may be held liable for their failure, but may exculpate itself from liability by proving that it had exercised the diligence of a good father of the family.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J., concurring:  

Stressed the need for a major amendment to Article 2180 insofar as it refers to teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades in relation to pupils and students or apprentices. The pertinent paragraph is a relic of the past and contemplates a situation long gone. It is unfair to hold teachers liable on a presumption juris tantum of negligence for acts of students even under circumstances where strictly speaking there could be no in loco parentis relationship. Ordinary rules on quasi-delicts should apply to teachers and schools of whatever nature insofar as grown up students are concerned.

NOTES: Jurisprudential history: 

 

Exconde v. Capuno: Dante Capuno attended a parade on instructions of the school. After parade, he boarded and drove a jeep which killed 2 passengers. Only the father was held liable. The school was not a school of arts and trades (obiter). Justice JBL Reyes dissented arguing that teachers in general and heads of schools of arts and trades in particular are liable. Mercado v. CA: a student cut a classmate with a razor blade during recess. School was not liable because not an establishment for arts and trades, and because the custody requirement was not satisfied because the student doesn’t live/board with the teacher (obiter). Palisoc v. Brillantes: a student was killed by a classmate in the school laboratory. The teacher was held liable because custody refers to protective and supervisory custody that the school, its heads, and teachers exercise over the students for as long as they’re at attendance in school, including recess. Even students already 18yo are covered.

Article 2180. 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 who live in their company. Guardians are liable for damages caused by the minors or incapacitated persons who are under their authority and live in their company. The owners and managers of an establishment or enterprise are likewise responsible for damages caused by their employees in the service of the branches in which the latter are employed or on the occasion of their functions. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not engaged in any business or industry. The State is responsible in like manner when it acts through a special agent; but not when the damage has been caused by the official to whom the task done properly pertains, in which case what is provided in article 2176 shall be applicable. Lastly, teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages caused by their pupils and students or apprentices, so long as they remain in their custody.

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)