Ylarde v. Aquino

Federico Ylarde and Adelaida Doronio v. Edgardo Aquino, Mauro Soriano, and CA

1988 / Gancayco [Negligence > Standard of conduct > Children]

Facts

Soriano is the school principal; Aquino and Banez were teachers in this school. Novelito Ylarde is a student [deceased] & Federico is his father.

Gabaldon Primary School, an academic school, was littered with several huge concrete blocks [around one ton each] which were remnants of an old school shop which was destroyed in WWII. Banez [teacher] realized that these stones were huge hazards so he started burying them, and he was able to bury 10 blocks by himself. A fellow teacher Aquino decided to help, so he gathered 18 students and ordered them to dig a  hole where a 1-ton stone could be buried. The following day, he called 4 of these students to continue digging. When the hole was 1m 40cm deep, Aquino alone continued digging while the students remained inside the pit, throwing out loose soil. They got out of the hole when the depth was right. Aquino left the children to level the loose soil around the hole because he went to see Banez (who was 30 meters away) to get a key to the school workroom to get rope. He allegedly told the children not to touch the stone.

     After Aquino left, 3/4 kids jumped inside the pit, Ylarde included. The remaining kid jumped on top of the block, causing it to slide downwards. 2 were able to get out but Ylarde wasn't able to do so, and so the block pinned him to the wall in a standing position. He sustained injuries and three days later, Ylarde died. His parents filed a suit for damages against Aquino and Soriano [principal], but the RTC dismissed the complaint for the following reasons:

• Digging done is in line with Work Education subject
• Aquino exercised the utmost diligence of a very cautious person
• Ylarde's death was due to his own reckless imprudence

CA affirmed RTC. Petitioners base their action against Aquino [teacher] on NCC 2176 for his alleged negligence that caused Ylarde's death, while the action against the principal was based on NCC 2180.

Issue and Holding

WON both can be held liable for damages. NO, ONLY AQUINO [TEACHER] IS LIABLE.

Ratio

The principal cannot be held liable because he is a head of an academic school, not a school of arts and trade. SC cited Amadora v. CA wherein it was held NCC 2180 says that in an academic school, it is only the teacher who should be answerable for torts committed by their students, and in a school of arts and trades, it is only the school head who can be held liable. [LegMeth lesson: reddendo singula singulis -- "refers only to the last"]. Also, as admitted by Aquino himself, the principal did not give any instruction regarding the digging.

     Now, here's the twist: Aquino can be held liable under NCC 2180 as the teacher-in-charge. HOWEVER, petitioners base Aquino's alleged liability on NCC 2176. Therefore, the question is WON there were acts and omissions on Aquino's part amounting to fault or negligence which have direct causal relation to Ylarde's death, and the answer is YES. Ylarde would not have died were it not for the unsafe situation created by Aquino. He acted with fault and gross negligence when he:

• Failed to avail himself of services of adult manual laborers and instead utilized his pupils to make an excavation near a 1 ton concrete stone which he knew to be a hazardous task
• Required the children to remain inside the pit even after they finished digging, knowing that the block was nearby
• Ordered them to level the soil when it was apparent that the stone was on the brink of falling
• Went to a place where he would not be able to check on the students' safety
• Left the children close to the excavation, an attractive nuisance

It's totally ridiculous how the lower court found Aquino to have exercised utmost diligence of a very cautious person. The simple warning "not to touch the stone" is of no use, considering the age of these children. He should have made sure that the children are protected from all harm while they are in his company, since he stands in loco parentis to his students.

     Also ridiculous is the claim that the digging work is part of Work Education. For one, Aquino himself said that the principal made no instructions requiring what students were to do. Also, it's not in the lesson plan, since Aquino decided all by himself to help Banez. Also, this activity should not be placed alongside relatively lighter (!) activities such as school gardening, tree planting [which could be legitimately part of the Work Education subject] because these do not expose the children to such risk!

     SC does not agree with lower court that the injuries which led to Ylarde's death were caused by his own reckless imprudence. The degree of care required to be exercised must vary with the capacity of the person endangered to care for himself. A minor should not be held to the same degree of care as an adult, but his conduct should be judged according to the average conduct of persons his age and experience. (Left by themselves and tired from the strenuous digging, it was natural that they would play around. Also note that it was not only Ylarde who jumped into the hole.) Hence, Ylarde cannot be charged with reckless imprudence.