Amadora v.

CA (1988) Petitioners: Amadora family Respondents: CA, Colegio de San Juan-Recoletos, Victor Lluch, Sergio Damaso, Celestino Dicon, Aniano Abellana, Pablito Daffon Ponente: Cruz, J. Doctrine: Custody requirement: Requirement: that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective. The custody does not necessarily have to be co-terminus with the semester. It is not necessary that the teacher be physically present at the time of the injury. Custody refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled because of the influence. Short version: Amadora was shot in the school auditorium when he was going to submit a physics project. Is the school being an academic institution liable? Yes, there is no substantial distinction between academic and non-academic schools insofar as torts are concerned. The same vigilance/diligence is expected from the teacher over the students. Alfredo Amadora died after being shot by classmate Pablito Daffon. o This happened in the school auditorium. o Amadora was there to submit his physics report. o This happened 3 days before graduation. Daffon was convicted of homicide through reckless imprudence. Amadoras parents filed civil action for damages under NCC 2180 against the school Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, the rector, the HS principal, the dean of boys, and the physics teacher (and against Daffon and two other students, through their parents.) o NCC 2180 (5) 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. CA: NCC 2180 is not applicable since Colegio de San Jose is not a school of arts and trades but an academic institution of learning. o The students (victim and accused) were no longer in the custody of the school since the semester has already ended and that the defendants exercised the necessary diligence in preventing the injury. Amadora family contentions: o The victim was in school to conduct his physics experiment as a prerequisite for his graduation; thus, he was in the custody of the school. o The dean of boys committed negligence. The dean confiscated an unlicensed pistol from a student Gumban but eventually returned it. o Gumban was a companion of the Daffon during the shooting; they claim that the confiscated gun was used.

Issue: Is NCC 2180 is applicable to Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos, being an academic institution? Are Rector, HS principal, the dean of boys, and Physics teacher liable? Held:

Yes, NCC 2180 applicable to an academic institution. But in this case, the school is not liable. No, Rector, HS principal, dean of boys, and Physics teacher not liable.

Ratio: Three cases cited by the SC: 1. Exconde case: o The school was exculpated in an obiter (since the school was not a party to the case) since it was not a school of arts and trades. o Justice JBL Reyes and two others dissented, arguing that it was the school authorities who should be held liable. o Under NCC 2180, liability was imposed on (1) teachers in general; (2) heads of schools of arts and trades in particular. o The modifying clause of establishments of arts and trades should apply only to heads and not teachers. Mercado case: o Reiterated the majority opinion/obiter of Exconde. o custody requirement: situation where the student lives and boards with the teacher, such that the control and influences on the pupil supersede those of the parents. 3. Palisoc case: o Manila Technical Institute- a school of trades o Even students already of age (age of majority) were covered by NCC 2180 o Unlike in Exconde and Mercado, the school in this case has been directly impleaded here. In this case: Unlike in Palisoc, the school in this case is an academic institution of learning. The provision should apply to all schools, regardless of nature. o SC conforms to the dissent of JBL Reyes in Exconde. o General rule: If the school is academic, the liability will be on the teacher. o Exception: If it is a school of arts and trades, the head shall be liable. 2.

Teachers should apply to the words pupils and students and heads of establishments of arts and trades to the word apprentices. There is no substantial distinction between academic and non-academic schools insofar as torts are concerned. The same vigilance/diligence is expected from the teacher over the students. Why the disparity/difference? o Historically, the head of the school of arts and trades exercised a closer tutelage over his pupils than the head of an academic school. There was apprenticeship in schools of arts and trades; direct and personal instruction on the technique and secrets of the craft. o Although this distinction is no longer applicable since there is diminution of the direct and personal contract of the heads with the students, until legislative changes the law, it will still be followed.

SC took into account the changes in the situation in interpreting NCC 2180. Custody requirement: o Requirement: that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective. The custody does not necessarily have to be co-terminus with the semester. o It is not necessary that the teacher be physically present at the time of the injury. Custody refers more to the influence exerted on the child and the discipline instilled because of the influence. The liability falls on the teacher or head of school of arts, not the school itself. If the teacher or head can prove that he exercised the necessary precautions, he would be absolved of liability. This case upheld the Palisoc case. NCC 2180 covers all students, regardless of age. Conclusions: 1. Amadora was still in the custody of the school when he was shot. 2. Rector, HS principal, and the dean of boys cannot be held liable since they were not the teacher-in-charge. o Each of them only exercising general authority over the student body not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular classes. o Evidence of Amadora family does not disclose who teacher-in-charge is. 3. The physics teacher is not necessarily the teacher-in-charge (the evidence does not determine who it is). Even if he is, there is no showing that he was negligent. 4. It is probably the dean of boys who should be liable, given that he confiscated a gun and returned it without taking disciplinary action. However, this does not link him to the shooting as it was not proven that the confiscated gun was the same gun used in the shooting. 5. Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable because under this article, only the teacher or head of school is made responsible. The school may be held to answer for the acts of its teacher or the head under the general principle of respondent superior, but it may exculpate itself from liability by proof that it had exercised the diligence of a bonus paterfamilias. Basis of teachers vicarious liability is, as such, they acting in Loco Parentis (in place of parents). o However, teachers are not expected to have the same measure of responsibility as that imposed on parent for their influence over the child is not equal in degree. o The parent can instill more lasting discipline more lasting disciple on the child than the teacher and so should be held to a greater accountability than the teacher or the head for the tort committed by the child. As the teacher was not shown to have been negligent nor the school remised in the discharged of their duties, they were exonerated of liability. Also, SC took note of the increasing students activism which would likely cause violence resulting to injuries, in or out of the school premises o Many students view teachers as part of the bourgeois whose advice on behavior deportment and other nonacademic matters is not only resented but actively rejected. o It is unfair to hold teacher liable on a presumption of negligence for acts of students even under circumstances where strictly speaking there could be no in loco parentis relationship. Because of that previous statement, SC says NCC 2180 involved in this case has outlived its purpose. o The court cannot make law, it can only apply the law with its imperfections. However the court can suggest that such a law should be amended or repealed.

Petition denied.