AMADORA
v. CA
G.R.
No. L-44745, Apr. 15, 1988
The
setting is the Colegio-de San Jose Recoletos, which was NOT a school
of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning. A few
days before the commencement exercises, student Alfredo Amadora went to school
to finish his physics experiment as a prerequisite for graduation. When he was
in the auditorium, he was shot to death by his classmate Pablito Daffon.
Pablito was convicted of homicide thru reckless
imprudence. Alfredo’s parents filed a civil action for damages under NCC 2180 against the school, its
rector, the high school principal, the dean of boys, the physics teacher,
together with Pablito and two other students, through their parents. The complaint against the students was
dropped.
CONTENTIONS
ON CUSTODY
- PETITIONERS: AMADORA UNDER SCHOOL’S CUSTODY. He
was in school to show his physics experiment as a graduation prerequisite.
- RESPONDENTS: AMADORA NOT UNDER SCHOOL’S CUSTODY. Semester
already ended.
THE
GUN ISSUE
Days before the incident, the dean of the boys
confiscated from Gumban an unlicensed pistol but later returned it to him
without making a report to the principal or taking any further action. PETITIONERS
contend that this was the same pistol, as Gumban was one of Daffon’s
companions when the latter fired the gun that killed Amadora, and that Amadora
would not have been killed if the gun was not returned by the dean of the boys.
RULING
OF COURTS
CFI
held the remaining defendants liable. CA, however, reversed
CFI and all defendants were absolved. CA found that NCC
2180 was not applicable since the school was not a school of arts and
trades. It also held that the students were not in the school’s custody at
the time of the incident since the semester already ended. In addition, there
was no clear identification of the gun, and that the defendant exercised the
necessary diligence in preventing injury.
ISSUES
& HELD (aka QUICK SUMMARY OF FINDINGS)
- Does NCC 2180 also cover establishments that are NOT schools of arts and
trades? – YES
- When is the offending student supposed to be in the school’s custody? – As
long as he is under the control and influence of the school and within
its premises, whether the semester has not yet begun or has already ended. Alfredo still under custody
- Who is liable for the injury? – None
of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito on Alfredo
RULING
1.
The school CANNOT be
held directly liable under NCC 2180.
Three
cases were cited: Exconde, Mercado, and Palisoc.
What
you need to know in Exconde
- Student boarded a jeep, took over its wheel and drove it recklessly that
it turned turtle, resulting to the death of two of its passengers.
- This decision, penned by Justice Angelo exculpated the school on
the ground that it was not a school of arts and trades.
- Justice Reyes said that the school authorities should be held
liable.
- Liability was imposed on
teachers in general, and heads of schools of arts and trades in particular. The
clause “of establishments of arts and trades” should apply only to heads.
What
you need to know in Mercado
- A student cut a classmate with a razor blade during recess time in
school.
- Exconde was reiterated in this case
(the school was exculpated on the ground that it was not a school of arts and
trades).
- The custody requirement was not proved as it “contemplates a
situation where the student lives and boards with the teacher, such that
the control, direction and influences on the pupil supersede those of
the parent.”
What
you need to know in Palisoc
- A student was killed by a classmate with fist blows in the laboratory of
the school.
- The head of the school and the teacher-in-charge were held liable
together with the wrongdoer, even though the latter was not boarding in the
school.
- The ponencia, Justice Teehankee, said, “There is nothing in the law that
requires that for such liability to attach, the pupil or student who commits
the tortious act must live an board in
the school,” as erroneously held in Exconde
and Mercado.
The
case at hand – Amadora
- The school has been directly impleaded unlike in Exconde and Mercado.
- The school is an academic institution of learning, unlike in
Palisoc wherein the school was an arts and trade school.
Q: Does NCC 2180 also cover
establishments that are NOT schools of arts and trades? – YES
GENERAL RULE. Where the school is academic rather than technical or
vocational in nature, responsibility for the tort committed by the student will
attach to the teacher in charge of
the student, following the first part of NCC 2180. In the case of
establishments of arts and trades,
it is the head that should be
answerable as an exception to the
general rule.
Following the canon of reddendo singula singulis, “teachers”
should apply to the words “pupils and students” and “heads of
establishments of arts and trades” to the word “apprentices.”
On the differences between
academic and non-academic schools
There is no substantial
distinction between the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as torts
committed by their students are concerned. The same vigilance is expected
from the teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever
the nature of the school where he is teaching. The teacher should not be able
to excuse himself by simply showing that he is teaching in an academic school
where, on the other hand, the head would be held liable if the school were
non-academic.
HOWEVER, why is it that for academic
schools, the teacher is the one held liable, while for non-academic
/ arts and trade schools, the head is the one held liable? The
answer can be traced to the fact that historically, the head exercised a
closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of an academic school because
of the apprenticeship system they employed. This distinction no longer
holds at present but until NCC 2180 is changed, it should be interpreted according
to its clear and original mandate.
2.
At the time the incident
occurred, Alfredo was still in the custody of the school authorities.
Q: When is the offending
student supposed to be in the school’s custody? – As long as he is under the
control and influence of the school and within its premises, whether
the semester has not yet begun or has already ended
On the teacher-in-charge and
custody
The
teacher-in-charge, who is the one designated by a superior to exercise
supervision over pupils for a particular subject or section, is the one who
must be held liable, in the same way that parents are responsible for the child
when he is in their custody. It is not
necessary that at the time of the injury, the teacher is physically present to
be in a position to prevent it. Custody refers to the influence
exerted on the child and the discipline instilled in him because of such
influence. For the injuries caused by
the student, the teacher and not the parent shall be held responsible if the
tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its
authority could be validly exercised over him.
The rector, high school principal and the dean of boys CANNOT be held
liable because none of them was the teacher-in-charge as defined, and
they were only exercising general authority over the student body.
Evidence did not disclose who the teacher-in-charge of Pablito was. The mere fact that Alfredo went to school
to finish / submit his physics project DID NOT necessarily make the physics
teacher the teacher-in-charge.
In the absence of a
teacher-in-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable, since there was evidence
that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from a student and returned
it to the latter without reporting to authorities. HOWEVER, it has not been
showed that said gun was the same that Pablito used to shoot Alfredo; hence, said
fact does not necessarily link the dean to the shooting.
On the defense of exercising
due diligence of a good father of a family
The school, teacher-in-charge,
or the head may exculpate themselves by proving that they exercised the
diligence of a good father of a family or bonus
paterfamilias. The school can show this in selecting the head or its teachers
and the appropriate supervision over them in the custody and instruction
of the pupils pursuant to the rules and regulations for the maintenance
of discipline among them.
Such defense
is also available to the teacher or
the head of the school of arts and trades directly held to answer for the
tort committed by the student. 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 teacher will
be held liable not only when he is acting in loco parentis for
the law does not require that the offending student be of minority age. Unlike the parent, who will be liable only
if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answerable by the law for
the act of the student under him regardless of the student's age. The Court is
disposed not to expect from the teacher the same measure of responsibility
imposed on the parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree.
The parent can expect more obedience from the child because the latter's dependence on him is greater than on
the teacher.
However, assuming that the
physics teacher was the teacher-in-charge, there is NO SHOWING that he was
negligent in enforcing discipline upon Pablito or that he waived
observance or condoned the non-observance of school rules and regulations. Respondents have proved that they had exercised
due diligence, through the
enforcement of the school regulations, in maintaining that discipline.
OPINIONS
Concurring
and dissenting opinion of Justice Melencio-Herrera
- Disagrees with the restricted meaning given to
the term teacher as “teacher-in-charge”
- The philosophy of law is that whoever stands
in loco parentis will have the same
duties and obligations as parents whenever in such a standing. As long as
pupils and students remain in their custody, they shall be held liable for the
former’s tortious acts.
Concurring
opinion of Justice Gutierrez
- There is a need for a major amendment, if not
a complete scrapping, of the paragraph in NCC 2180 that refers to teachers or
heads of establishments of arts and trades in relation to pupils and students
or apprentices
- No more masters, apprentices in schools of
arts and trades
- Teachers are often no longer objects of
veneration who are given due to substitute parents
