G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988 JOSE S. AMADORA, AMADORA, LORETA LORETA A. AMADORA, AMADORA, JOSE JOSE A. AMADOR AMADORA A JR., JR., NORMA A. YLAYA YLAYA PANTAL PANTALEON EON A. AMADORA, AMADORA, JOSE A. A. AMADORA AMADORA III, LUY A. A. AMADORA, AMADORA, ROSALINDA ROSALINDA A. AMADORA, AMADORA, PER!ETO PER!ETO A. AMADORA, AMADORA, SERRE SERRE A. AMADORA AMADORA,, "IENTE A. AMADORA AMADORA #$% MARIA MARIA TISALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners AMADORA, petitioners vs. &ONORA'LE &ONORA'LE OURT OURT O! APPEALS, APPEALS, OLEGIO OLEGIO DE SAN JOSE REOLETOS, REOLETOS, "ITOR "ITOR LLU& SERGIO SERGIO P. P. DLMASO DLMASO JR., ELESTINO ELESTINO DION, ANIANO ANIANO A'ELLANA, A'ELLANA, PA'LITO PA'LITO DA!!ON DA!!ON ()r* )i+ p#r$(+ #$% $#(*r#l *#r%i#$+, MR. #$% MRS. NIANOR GUM'AN, #$% ROLANDO "ALENIA, ()r* )i+ *#r%i#$, A. !RANISO ALONSO, respondents.
Topi/ Reddendo Singula Singulis !#(+ o0 () #+/ 1. Three days days before his graduation, graduation, Alfredo Amadora, Amadora, a 17-year 17-year old prospective graduate, was in the auditorium of his high school, olegio de San !ose-Recoletos, when his classmate, "ablito #amon, fired a gun that mortally hit Alfredo. $. #amon #amon was convicted convicted of homicid homicidee thru rec%less rec%less imprud imprudence ence.. &. "etitioners herein filed filed a civil action action for damages under Article $1'( )*ote 1-"+AS RA# TS /RST0 against the high school principal, dean of boys and physics teacher together with #affon and two other students, through their respective parents )charge against students was later dropped0 4. CFI held remaining defendants liable for damages representing death compensation, loss of earning capacity, et.al. 5. CA reversed the decision of / 6. "etitioners contend that Alfredo was in the school to show his reuired physics pro2ect hence under the custody of respondents. respondents. Respondents Respondents argue that semester has already ended, hence no longer in their custody. 7. n addition to the facts, Sergio #amaso, dean of boys, confiscated a gun from !ose 3umban but later returned it without ma%ing a report to the principal or ta%ing further action. 3umban was one of the companions of #amon when he fired the gun. 8. "etitioners states that this is important because petitioners contend that this was the same gun that #amon shot and Alfredo
would not have been %illed if it not had been returned by #amaso. 9. Respondents replies that there is no proof that it was the same firearm that %illed Alfredo. 10. 4oth parties invo%ed Article $1'( of the ivil ode. Pri#r2 I++*/ I++*/ 5hether or not the interpretation of Article $1'( covers even establishments which are not school of arts and trades R*li$/ 6es.
)Author8s note9 Since the case cited three cases which thin% are important, those cases are summari:ed below even before the ruling. 6ou can s%ip but 2ust putting this as reference.0 Exconde v Capuno Capuno A 1;-year old student of 4alintawa% lem School, in a Ri:al #ay parade on the the instructions instructions of the school school supervisor, supervisor, boarded boarded a 2eep and drove it rec%lessly that it turtle flipped, resulting to the death of two of its passengers. passengers. #ante was found found guilty of double homicide homicide with rec%less imprudence. n the civil case, his father was held solidarily liable for damages )under Art $1'(0. School was eculpated on the grounds that it was not a school of arts and trades. ere, !ustice Reyes dissented stating the school authorities should be held liable under this rule, specifically to9 )10 teachers in general< and )$0 heads of schools of arts and trades in particular. particular. !ustic Reyes opined that =of establishmen establishments ts of arts and trades> under Art $1'( should only apply to =heads> only and not =teachers>. Mercado Mercado v CA conde was reiterated in this case. A student of +ourdes School cut a classmate with a ra:orblade during recess. The parents sued the culprit8s parents for damages. ourt declared that the school was not liable since it was not an establishment of arts and trades. Palisoc v Brillantes
Lopez, AMC AMC
A 1?-year old student was %illed by a classmate with fistblows in the lab of @anila Technical nstitute. Although wrongdoer was already of age and was not boarding in the school, the head and the teacher in charge was held liable with him. =ustody> in Article $1'( means custody eercised over pupils as long as they are attendance in school, including recess time. The law does not reuire for the pupil or student who commits the tortious act to be living and boarding in the school for them to have liability. ourt erred in conde and @ercado. These previous cases must be deemed to have been set aside by present decision. !ustice @a%alintal dissented that law should only be applied to pupils not yet of age as teachers are acting only in loco parentis. 1. Article $1'( should apply to all schools. 5here school is academic, tort committed by student will attach to teacher in charge. 5here school is of arts and trades, then it is the head that is liable. $. STATCON Doctrine: reddendo singula singulis a. n the provision of Article $1'(, the word =teachers> should apply to the words =pupils and students> and the phrase =heads of establishments of arts and trades> to the word =apprentices> b. The words =arts and trades> does not ualify =teachers> but only =heads of establishments> c. nglish of doctrine means =referring to each phrase or epression to its appropriate ob2ect> &. 5here the parent places the child under the effective authority of the teacher, the latter should be the one answerable for the torts committed while under his custody. a. ourt does not find reason for relaing vigilance in academic schools and increasing vigilance in nonacademic school.
Custody Issue . The student is in custody of the school authorities as long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within its Lopez, AMC
premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. ;. As long as it can be shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student ob2ective, in the eercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the en2oyment of a legitimate student right or privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the student continues. ?. ven if student is 2ust relaing in the campus en2oying the ambiance and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and sub2ect to the discipline of school authorities. 7. ustody does not connote immediate physical presence but refers more to the influence and discipline instilled in the student. Therefore, the teacher in charge will be liable for tort, regardless of age. 4ut teacher or school can eonerate this liability by proof that it had eercised diligence of a good father. Court’s Conclusions '. Alfredo was in the custody of the school at the time he was fatally shot. B. The rector, principal and physics teacher are not liable as none of them was the teacher-in-charge as defined. They were only eercising a general authority over the student body. @ere fact that Alfredo went to school to submit a physics report does not ma%e the physics teacher the teacher-in-charge. 1(. There is no showing that #icon was negligent in enforcing discipline upon #amon. The private respondents have proved that they had eercised due diligence through the enforcement of the school regulations and maintaining that discipline. 11. Although dean of boys who should "RC4A4+6 be liable for no reporting to higher authorities, his negligence only deserves sanctions from the school and does not necessarily lin% him to the shooting as it was not proved that the confiscated gun was the same gun that shot Alfredo. 1$. School cannot be liable because under the Art $1'(, only teachers and heads of establishments of the school of arts and trades is made responsible. None of the responents !re "i!#"e. $etition is D%NI%D.
