Amadora v. CA

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)

1. Does NCC 2180 also cover establishments that are NOT schools of arts and trades? – YES
2. 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
3. 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