SALYMAR V.

SANTOS
JOSE S. AMADORA, LORETA A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA JR., NORMA A. YLAYA,
PANTALEON A. AMADORA, JOSE A. AMADORA III, LUCY A. AMADORA, ROSALINDA A.
AMADORA, PERFECTO A. AMADORA, SERREC A. AMADORA, VICENTE A. AMADORA and
MARIA TISCALINA A. AMADORA, petitioners, s. !ONORA"LE COURT OF APPEALS,
COLE#IO DE SAN JOSE$RECOLETOS, VICTOR LLUC!, SER#IO P. DAMASO, JR., CELESTINO
DICON, ANIANO A"ELLANA, PA"LITO DAFFON, t%r& %is parents and nat&ra' (&ardians,
MR. and MRS. NICANOR #UM"AN, and ROLANDO VALENCIA, t%r& %is (&ardian, ATTY.
FRANCISCO ALONSO, respondents.
Civil Law; Torts; Article 2180 of the Civil Code should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-
academic!After an e"haustive e"amination of the pro#lem, the Court has come to the conclusion
that the provision in $uestion should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic %here
the school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsi#ility for the tort
committed #y the student will attach to the teacher in char&e of such student, followin& the 'rst
part of the provision This is the &eneral rule (n the case of esta#lishments of arts and trades, it is
the head thereof, and only he, who shall #e held lia#le as an e"ception to the &eneral rule (n other
words, teachers in &eneral shall #e lia#le for the acts of their students e"cept where the school is
technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall #e an)wera#le *ollowin& the
canon of reddendo sin&ula sin&ulis, +teachers, should apply to the words +-pup.s and students,
and +heads of esta#lishments of arts and trades, to the word +apprentices,
/ame; /ame; /ame; 0o su#stantial distinction #etween the academic and the non-academic
schools insofar as torts committed #y their students are concerned!There is really no su#stantial
distinction #etween the academic and the non-academic schools insofar as torts committed #y
their students are concerned The same vi&ilance is e"pected from the teacher over the students
under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school where he is teachin&, The
su&&estion in the /"conde and 1ercado Cases is that the provision would ma2e the teacher or even
the head of the school of arts and trades lia#le for an in3ury caused #y any student in its custody
#ut if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no lia#ility would attach to the teacher
or the school head All other circumstances #ein& the same, the teacher or the head of the
academic school would #e a#solved whereas the teacher and the head of the nonacademic school
would #e held lia#le, and simply #ecause the latter is a school of arts and trades
/ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; 0o plausi#le reason why di4erent de&rees of vi&ilance should #e
e"ercised #y the school authorities!The Court cannot see why di4erent de&rees of vi&ilance
should #e e"ercised #y the school authorities on the #asis only of the nature of their respective
schools There does not seem to #e any plausi#le reason for rela"Ln& that vi&ilance simply #ecause
the school is academic in nature and for increasin& such vi&ilance where the school is
nonacademic 0ota#ly, the in3ury su#3ect of lia#ility is caused #y the student and not #y the school
itself nor it is a result of the operations of the school or its e$uipment The in3ury contemplated may
#e caused #y any student re&ardless of the school where he is re&istered The teacher certainly
should not #e a#le to e"cuse himself #y simply showin& that he is teachin& in an academic school
where, on the other hand, the head would #e held lia#le if the school were non-academic
/ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; 5eason for the disparity!The reason for the disparity can #e
traced to the fact that historically the head of the school of arts and trades e"ercised a closer
tutela&e over his pupils than the head of the academic school The old schools of arts and trades
were en&a&ed in the trainin& of artisans apprenticed to their master who personally and directly
instructed them on the techni$ue and secrets of their craft The head of the school of arts and
trades was such a master and so was personally involved in the tas2 of teachin& his students, who
usually even #oarded with him and so came under his constant control, supervision and in6uence
)y contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with his students and e"ercised
only administrative duties over the teachers who were the persons directly dealin& with the
students The head of the academic school had then 7as now8 only a vicarious relationship with the
students Conse$uently, while he could not #e directly faulted for the acts of the students, the head
of the school of arts and trades, #ecause of his closer ties with them, could #e so #lamed
/ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; 9istinction no lon&er o#tains at present!(t is conceded
that the distinction no lon&er o#tains at present in view of the e"pansion of the schools of arts and
trades, the conse$uent increase in their enrollment, and the correspondin& diminution of the direct
and personal contact of their heads with the students Article 2180, however, remains unchan&ed
(n its present state, the provision must #e interpreted #y the Court accordin& to its clear and
ori&inal mandate until the le&islature, ta2in& into account the chan&es in the situation su#3ect to #e
re&ulated, sees 't to enact the necessary amendment
/ame; /ame; Custody re$uirement; Article 2180 of the Civil Code does not mean that the student
must #e #oardin& with the school authorities #ut the student should #e within the control and under
its in6uence at the time of the occurrence of the in3ury!*rom a readin& of the provision under
e"amination, it is clear that while the custody re$uirement, to repeat :alisoc vs )rillantes, does not
mean that the student must #e #oardin& with the school authorities, it does si&nify that the student
should #e within the control and under the in6uence of the school authorities at the time of the
occurrence of the in3ury This does not necessarily mean that such custody #e co-terminous with
the semester, #e&innin& with the start of classes and endin& upon the close thereof, and e"cludin&
the time #efore or after such period, such as the period of re&istration, and in the case of
&raduatin& students, the period #efore the commencement e"ercises (n the view of the Court, the
student is in the custody of the school authorities as lon& as he is under the control and in6uence of
the school and within its premises, whether the semester has not yet #e&un or has already ended
/ame; /ame; /ame; ;"tent ofresponsi#ility;As lon& as the student is in the school premises in
pursuance of a le&itimate purpose, the responsi#ility of the school authorities over the student
continues!As lon& as it can #e shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a
le&itimate student o#3ective, in the e"ercise of a le&itimate student ri&ht, and even in the
en3oyment of a le&itimate student privile&e, the responsi#ility of the school authorities over the
student continues (ndeed, even if the student should #e doin& nothin& more than rela"in& in the
campus in the company of his classmates and friends and en3oyin& the am#ience and atmosphere
of the school, he is still within the custody and su#3ect to the discipline of the school authorities
under the provisions of Article 2180
/ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; Teacher-in-char&e must answer for his student<s torts!9urin& all these
occasions, it is o#viously the teacherin-char&e who must answer for his students< torts, in
practically the same way that the parents are responsi#le for the child when he is in their custody
The teacher-in-char&e is the one desi&nated #y the dean, principal, or other administrative superior
to e"ercise supervision over the pupils in the speci'c classes or sections to which they are
assi&ned (t is not necessary that at the time of the in3ury, the teacher #e physically present and in
a position to prevent it Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control #ut refers
more to the in6uence e"erted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such
in6uence Thus, for the in3uries caused #y the student, the teacher and not the parent shall #e held
responsi#le if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its
authority could #e validly e"ercised over him
/ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; The school may #e held to answer for the acts of its teachers or
even of the head thereof under the &eneral principle of respondent superior #ut may e"culpate
itself from lia#ility #y proof that it had e"ercised the dili&ence of a #onus paterfamilias!(n any
event, it should #e noted that the lia#ility imposed #y this article is supposed to fall directly on the
teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself (f at all, the school,
whatever its nature, may #e held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head thereof
under the &eneral principle of respondent superior, #ut then it may e"culpate itself from lia#ility #y
proof that it had e"ercised the dili&ence of a #onus paterfamilias,
/ame; /arne; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /uch defense also availa#le to the teacher or the head of
the school of arts and trade,!/uch defense is, of course, also availa#le to the teacher or the head
of the school of arts and trades directly held to answer for the tort committed #y the student As
lon& as the defendant can show that he had ta2en the necessary precautions to prevent the in3ury
complained of, he can e"onerate himself from the lia#ility imposed #y Article 2180
/ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; /ame; Lia#ility attaches to the teacher and the head of
the technical school althou&h the wron&doer was already of a&e!(n this connection, it should #e
o#served that the teacher will #e held lia#le not only when he is actin& in loco parentis for the law
does not re$uire that the o4endin& student #e of minority a&e =nli2e the parent, who will #e lia#le
only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answera#le #y the law for the act of the student
under him re&ardless of the student<s a&e Thus, in the :alisoc Case, lia#ility attached to the
teacher and the head of the technical school althou&h the wron&doer was already of a&e (n this
sense, Article 2180 treats the parent more favora#ly than the teacher >Amadora vs Court of
Appeals, 1?0 /C5A @1A71B888C
FULL CASE)
Li2e any prospective &raduate, Alfredo Amadora was loo2in& forward to the commencement
e"ercises where he would ascend the sta&e and in the presence of his relatives and friends receive
his hi&h school diploma These ceremonies were scheduled on April 1?, 1BD2 As it turned out,
thou&h, fate would intervene and deny him that awaited e"perience En April 1@, 1BD2, while they
were in the auditorium of their school, the Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos, a classmate, :a#lito
9amon, 'red a &un that mortally hit Alfredo, endin& all his e"pectations and his life as well The
victim was only seventeen years old 1
9a4on was convicted of homicide thru rec2less imprudence 2 Additionally, the herein petitioners,
as the victimGs parents, 'led a civil action for dama&es under Article 2180 of the Civil Code a&ainst
the Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos, its rector the hi&h school principal, the dean of #oys, and the
physics teacher, to&ether with 9a4on and two other students, throu&h their respective parents The
complaint a&ainst the students was later dropped After trial, the Court of *irst (nstance of Ce#u
held the remainin& defendants lia#le to the plainti4s in the sum of :2BH,B8H00, representin& death
compensation, loss of earnin& capacity, costs of liti&ation, funeral e"penses, moral dama&es,
e"emplary dama&es, and attorneyGs fees @En appeal to the respondent court, however, the
decision was reversed and all the defendants were completely a#solved H
(n its decision, which is now the su#3ect of this petition for certiorari under 5ule HA of the 5ules of
Court, the respondent court found that Article 2180 was not applica#le as the Cole&io de /an Fose-
5ecoletos was not a school of arts and trades #ut an academic institution of learnin& (t also held
that the students were not in the custody of the school at the time of the incident as the semester
had already ended, that there was no clear identi'cation of the fatal &un and that in any event the
defendant, had e"ercised the necessary dili&ence in preventin& the in3ury A
The #asic undisputed facts are that Alfredo Amadora went to the /an Fose-5ecoletos on April 1@,
1BD2, and while in its auditorium was shot to death #y :a#lito 9a4on, a classmate En the
implications and conse$uences of these facts, the parties sharply disa&ree
The petitioners contend that their son was in the school to show his physics e"periment as a
prere$uisite to his &raduation; hence, he was then under the custody of the private respondents
The private respondents su#mit that Alfredo Amadora had &one to the school only for the purpose
of su#mittin& his physics report and that he was no lon&er in their custody #ecause the semester
had already ended
There is also the $uestion of the identity of the &un used which the petitioners consider important
#ecause of an earlier incident which they claim underscores the ne&li&ence of the school and at
least one of the private respondents (t is not denied #y the respondents that on April D, 1BD2,
/er&io 9amaso, Fr, the dean of #oys, con'scated from Fose Ium#an an unlicensed pistol #ut later
returned it to him without ma2in& a report to the principal or ta2in& any further action ? As
Ium#an was one of the companions of 9a4on when the latter 'red the &un that 2illed Alfredo, the
petitioners contend that this was the same pistol that had #een con'scated from Ium#an and that
their son would not have #een 2illed if it had not #een returned #y 9amaso The respondents say,
however, that there is no proof that the &un was the same 'rearm that 2illed Alfredo
5esolution of all these disa&reements will depend on the interpretation of Article 2180 which, as it
happens, is invo2ed #y #oth parties in support of their con6ictin& positions The pertinent part of
this article reads as followsJ
Lastly, teachers or heads of esta#lishments of arts and trades shall #e lia#le for dama&es caused
#y their pupils and students or apprentices so lon& as they remain in their custody
Three cases have so far #een decided #y the Court in connection with the a#ove-$uoted provision,
to witJ ;"conde v Capuno D 1ercado v Court of Appeals, 8 and :alisoc v )rillantes B These will #e
#rie6y reviewed in this opinion for a #etter resolution of the case at #ar
(n the ;"conde Case, 9ante Capuno, a student of the )alintawa2 ;lementary /chool and a )oy
/cout, attended a 5iKal 9ay parade on instructions of the city school supervisor After the parade,
the #oy #oarded a 3eep, too2 over its wheel and drove it so rec2lessly that it turned turtle, resultin&
in the death of two of its passen&ers 9ante was found &uilty of dou#le homicide with rec2less
imprudence (n the separate civil action 6ied a&ainst them, his father was held solidarily lia#le with
him in dama&es under Article 1B0@ 7now Article 21808 of the Civil Code for the tort committed #y
the 1A-year old #oy
This decision, which was penned #y Fustice )autista An&elo on Fune 2B,1BAD, e"culpated the school
in an o#iter dictum 7as it was not a party to the case8 on the &round that it was riot a school of arts
and trades Fustice F)L 5eyes, with whom Fustices /a#ino :adilla and Ale" 5eyes concurred,
dissented, ar&uin& that it was the school authorities who should #e held lia#le Lia#ility under this
rule, he said, was imposed on 718 teachers in &eneral; and 728 heads of schools of arts and trades in
particular The modifyin& clause Lof esta#lishments of arts and tradesL should apply only to LheadsL
and not LteachersL
;"conde was reiterated in the 1ercado Case, and with an ela#oration A student cut a classmate
with a raKor #lade durin& recess time at the Lourdes Catholic /chool in MueKon City, and the
parents of the victim sued the culprits parents for dama&es Throu&h Fustice La#rador, the Court
declared in another o#iter 7as the school itself had also not #een sued that the school was not lia#le
#ecause it was not an esta#lishment of arts and trades 1oreover, the custody re$uirement had not
#een proved as this Lcontemplates a situation where the student lives and #oards with the teacher,
such that the control, direction and in6uences on the pupil supersede those of the parentsL Fustice
F)L 5eyes did not ta2e part #ut the other mem#ers of the court concurred in this decision
promul&ated on 1ay @0, 1B?0
(n :alisoc vs )rillantes, decided on Ecto#er H, 1BD1, a 1?-year old student was 2illed #y a
classmate with 'st #lows in the la#oratory of the 1anila Technical (nstitute Althou&h the wron&doer
! who was already of a&e ! was not #oardin& in the school, the head thereof and the teacher in
char&e were held solidarily lia#le with him The Court declared throu&h Fustice Teehan2eeJ
The phrase used in the cited article ! Lso lon& as 7the students8 remain in their custodyL ! means
the protective and supervisory custody that the school and its heads and teachers e"ercise over
the pupils and students for as lon& as they are at attendance in the school, includin& recess time
There is nothin& in the law that re$uires that for such lia#ility to attach, the pupil or student who
commits the tortious act must live and #oard in the school, as erroneously held #y the lower court,
and the dicta in 1ercado 7as well as in ;"conde8 on which it relied, must now #e deemed to have
#een set aside #y the present decision
This decision was concurred in #y 've other mem#ers, 10 includin& Fustice F)L 5eyes, who
stressed, in answer to the dissentin& opinion, that even students already of a&e were covered #y
the provision since they were e$ually in the custody of the school and su#3ect to its discipline
9issentin& with three others, 11 Fustice 1a2alintal was for retainin& the custody interpretation in
1ercado and su#mitted that the rule should apply only to torts committed #y students not yet of
a&e as the school would #e actin& only in loco parentis
(n a footnote, Fustice Teehan2ee said he a&reed with Fustice 5eyesG dissent in the ;"conde Case #ut
added that Lsince the school involved at #ar is a non-academic school, the $uestion as to the
applica#ility of the cited codal provision to academic institutions will have to await another case
wherein it may properly #e raisedL
This is the case
=nli2e in ;"conde and 1ercado, the Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos has #een directly impleaded and
is sou&ht to #e held lia#le under Article 2180; and unli2e in :alisoc, it is not a school of arts and
trades #ut an academic institution of learnin& The parties herein have also directly raised the
$uestion of whether or not Article 2180 covers even esta#lishments which are technically not
schools of arts and trades, and, if so, when the o4endin& student is supposed to #e Lin its custodyL
After an e"haustive e"amination of the pro#lem, the Court has come to the conclusion that the
provision in $uestion should apply to all schools, academic as well as non-academic %here the
school is academic rather than technical or vocational in nature, responsi#ility for the tort
committed #y the student will attach to the teacher in char&e of such student, followin& the 'rst
part of the provision This is the &eneral rule (n the case of esta#lishments of arts and trades, it is
the head thereof, and only he, who shall #e held lia#le as an e"ception to the &eneral rule (n other
words, teachers in &eneral shall #e lia#le for the acts of their students e"cept where the school is
technical in nature, in which case it is the head thereof who shall #e answera#le *ollowin& the
canon ofreddendo sin&ula sin&ulis LteachersL should apply to the words Lpupils and studentsL and
Lheads of esta#lishments of arts and tradesL to the word LapprenticesL
The Court thus conforms to the dissentin& opinion e"pressed #y Fustice F)L 5eyes in ;"conde
where he said in partJ
( can see no sound reason for limitin& Art 1B0@ of the Eld Civil Code to teachers of arts and trades
and not to academic ones %hat su#stantial di4erence is there #etween them insofar as concerns
the proper supervision and vice over their pupilsN (t cannot #e seriously contended that an
academic teacher is e"empt from the duty of watchin& that his pupils do not commit a tort to the
detriment of third :ersons, so lon& as they are in a position to e"ercise authority and /upervision
over the pupil (n my opinion, in the phrase Lteachers or heads of esta#lishments of arts and
tradesL used in Art 1B0@ of the old Civil Code, the words Larts and tradesL does not $ualify
LteachersL #ut only Lheads of esta#lishmentsL The phrase is only an updated version of the
e$uivalent terms Lpreceptores y artesanosL used in the (talian and *rench Civil Codes
(f, as conceded #y all commentators, the #asis of the presumption of ne&li&ence of Art 1B0@ in
someculpa in vi&ilando that the parents, teachers, etc are supposed to have incurred in the
e"ercise of their authority, it would seem clear that where the parent places the child under the
e4ective authority of the teacher, the latter, and not the parent, should #e the one answera#le for
the torts committed while under his custody, for the very reasonOthat the parent is not supposed to
interfere with the discipline of the school nor with the authority and supervision of the teacher
while the child is under instruction And if there is no authority, there can #e no responsi#ility
There is really no su#stantial distinction #etween the academic and the non-academic schools
insofar as torts committed #y their students are concerned The same vi&ilance is e"pected from
the teacher over the students under his control and supervision, whatever the nature of the school
where he is teachin& The su&&estion in the ;"conde and 1ercado Cases is that the provision would
ma2e the teacher or even the head of the school of arts and trades lia#le for an in3ury caused #y
any student in its custody #ut if that same tort were committed in an academic school, no lia#ility
would attach to the teacher or the school head All other circumstances #ein& the same, the
teacher or the head of the academic school would #e a#solved whereas the teacher and the head
of the non-academic school would #e held lia#le, and simply #ecause the latter is a school of arts
and trades
The Court cannot see why di4erent de&rees of vi&ilance should #e e"ercised #y the school
authorities on the #asis only of the nature of their respective schools There does not seem to #e
any plausi#le reason for rela"in& that vi&ilance simply #ecause the school is academic in nature
and for increasin& such vi&ilance where the school is non-academic 0ota#ly, the in3ury su#3ect of
lia#ility is caused #y the student and not #y the school itself nor is it a result of the operations of
the school or its e$uipment The in3ury contemplated may #e caused #y any student re&ardless of
the school where he is re&istered The teacher certainly should not #e a#le to e"cuse himself #y
simply showin& that he is teachin& in an academic school where, on the other hand, the head
would #e held lia#le if the school were non-academic
These $uestions, thou&h, may #e as2edJ (f the teacher of the academic school is to #e held
answera#le for the torts committed #y his students, why is it the head of the school only who is
held lia#le where the in3ury is caused in a school of arts and tradesN And in the case of the
academic or non- technical school, why not apply the rule also to the head thereof instead of
imposin& the lia#ility only on the teacherN
The reason for the disparity can #e traced to the fact that historically the head of the school of arts
and trades e"ercised a closer tutela&e over his pupils than the head of the academic school The
old schools of arts and trades were en&a&ed in the trainin& of artisans apprenticed to their master
who personally and directly instructed them on the techni$ue and secrets of their craft The head of
the school of arts and trades was such a master and so was personally involved in the tas2 of
teachin& his students, who usually even #oarded with him and so came under his constant control,
supervision and in6uence )y contrast, the head of the academic school was not as involved with
his students and e"ercised only administrative duties over the teachers who were the persons
directly dealin& with the students The head of the academic school had then 7as now8 only a
vicarious relationship with the students Conse$uently, while he could not #e directly faulted for the
acts of the students, the head of the school of arts and trades, #ecause of his closer ties with them,
could #e so #lamed
(t is conceded that the distinction no lon&er o#tains at present in view of the e"pansion of the
schools of arts and trades, the conse$uent increase in their enrollment, and the correspondin&
diminution of the direct and personal contract of their heads with the students Article 2180,
however, remains unchan&ed (n its present state, the provision must #e interpreted #y the Court
accordin& to its clear and ori&inal mandate until the le&islature, ta2in& into account the char&es in
the situation su#3ect to #e re&ulated, sees 't to enact the necessary amendment
The other matter to #e resolved is the duration of the responsi#ility of the teacher or the head of
the school of arts and trades over the students (s such responsi#ility co-e"tensive with the period
when the student is actually under&oin& studies durin& the school term, as contended #y the
respondents and impliedly admitted #y the petitioners themselvesN
*rom a readin& of the provision under e"amination, it is clear that while the custody re$uirement, to
repeat :alisoc v )rillantes, does not mean that the student must #e #oardin& with the school
authorities, it does si&nify that the student should #e within the control and under the in6uence of
the school authorities at the time of the occurrence of the in3ury This does not necessarily mean
that such, custody #e co-terminous with the semester, #e&innin& with the start of classes and
endin& upon the close thereof, and e"cludin& the time #efore or after such period, such as the
period of re&istration, and in the case of &raduatin& students, the period #efore the
commencement e"ercises (n the view of the Court, the student is in the custody of the school
authorities as lon& as he is under the control and in6uence of the school and within its premises,
whether the semester has not yet #e&un or has already ended
(t is too tenuous to ar&ue that the student comes under the discipline of the school only upon the
start of classes notwithstandin& that #efore that day he has already re&istered and thus placed
himself under its rules 0either should such discipline #e deemed ended upon the last day of
classes notwithstandin& that there may still #e certain re$uisites to #e satis'ed for completion of
the course, such as su#mission of reports, term papers, clearances and the li2e 9urin& such
periods, the student is still su#3ect to the disciplinary authority of the school and cannot consider
himself released alto&ether from o#servance of its rules
As lon& as it can #e shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a le&itimate
student o#3ective, in the e"ercise of a le&itimate student ri&ht, and even in the en3oyment of a
le&itimate student ri&ht, and even in the en3oyment of a le&itimate student privile&e, the
responsi#ility of the school authorities over the student continues (ndeed, even if the student
should #e doin& nothin& more than rela"in& in the campus in the company of his classmates and
friends and en3oyin& the am#ience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and
su#3ect to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180
9urin& all these occasions, it is o#viously the teacher-in-char&e who must answer for his studentsG
torts, in practically the same way that the parents are responsi#le for the child when he is in their
custody The teacher-in-char&e is the one desi&nated #y the dean, principal, or other administrative
superior to e"ercise supervision over the pupils in the speci'c classes or sections to which they are
assi&ned (t is not necessary that at the time of the in3ury, the teacher #e physically present and in
a position to prevent it Custody does not connote immediate and actual physical control #ut refers
more to the in6uence e"erted on the child and the discipline instilled in him as a result of such
in6uence Thus, for the in3uries caused #y the student, the teacher and not the parent sha& #e held
responsi#le if the tort was committed within the premises of the school at any time when its
authority could #e validly e"ercised over him
(n any event, it should #e noted that the lia#ility imposed #y this article is supposed to fall directly
on the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades and not on the school itself (f at all, the
school, whatever its nature, may #e held to answer for the acts of its teachers or even of the head
thereof under the &eneral principle ofrespondeat superior, #ut then it may e"culpate itself from
lia#ility #y proof that it had e"ercised the dili&ence of a#onus paterfamilias
/uch defense is, of course, also availa#le to the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades
directly held to answer for the tort committed #y the student As lon& as the defendant can show
that he had ta2en the necessary precautions to prevent the in3ury complained of, he can e"onerate
himself from the lia#ility imposed #y Article 2180, which also states thatJ
The responsi#ility treated of in this article shall cease when the :ersons herein mentioned prove
that they o#served all the dili&ence of a &ood father of a family to prevent dama&es
(n this connection, it should #e o#served that the teacher will #e held lia#le not only when he is
actin& in loco parentis for the law does not re$uire that the o4endin& student #e of minority a&e
=nli2e the parent, who wi& #e lia#le only if his child is still a minor, the teacher is held answera#le
#y the law for the act of the student under him re&ardless of the studentGs a&e Thus, in the :alisoc
Case, lia#ility attached to the teacher and the head of the technical school althou&h the wron&doer
was already of a&e (n this sense, Article 2180 treats the parent more favora#ly than the teacher
The Court is not unmindful of the apprehensions e"pressed #y Fustice 1a2alintal in his dissentin&
opinion in :alisoc that the school may #e unduly e"posed to lia#ility under this article in view of the
increasin& activism amon& the students that is li2ely to cause violence and resultin& in3uries in the
school premises That is a valid fear, to #e sure 0evertheless, it should #e repeated that, under the
present rulin&, it is not the school that will #e held directly lia#le 1oreover, the defense of due
dili&ence is availa#le to it in case it is sou&ht to #e held answera#le as principal for the acts or
omission of its head or the teacher in its employ
The school can show that it e"ercised proper measures in selectin& the head or its teachers and the
appropriate supervision over them in the custody and instruction of the pupils pursuant to its rules
and re&ulations for the maintenance of discipline amon& them (n almost all cases now, in fact,
these measures are e4ected throu&h the assistance of an ade$uate security force to help the
teacher physically enforce those rules upon the students 1s should #olster the claim of the school
that it has ta2en ade$uate steps to prevent any in3ury that may #e committed #y its students
A fortiori, the teacher himself may invo2e this defense as it would otherwise #e unfair to hold him
directly answera#le for the dama&e caused #y his students as lon& as they are in the school
premises and presuma#ly under his in6uence (n this respect, the Court is disposed not to e"pect
from the teacher the same measure of responsi#ility imposed on the parent for their in6uence over
the child is not e$ual in de&ree E#viously, the parent can e"pect more o#edience from the child
#ecause the latterGs dependence on him is &reater than on the teacher (t need not #e stressed that
such dependence includes the childGs support and sustenance whereas su#mission to the teacherGs
in6uence, #esides #ein& coterminous with the period of custody is usually enforced only #ecause of
the studentsG desire to pass the course The parent can instill more las discipline on the child than
the teacher and so should #e held to a &reater accounta#ility than the teacher for the tort
committed #y the child
And if it is also considered that under the article in $uestion, the teacher or the head of the school
of arts and trades is responsi#le for the dama&e caused #y the student or apprentice even if he is
already of a&e ! and therefore less tracta#le than the minor ! then there should all the more #e
3usti'cation to re$uire from the school authorities less accounta#ility as lon& as they can prove
reasona#le dili&ence in preventin& the in3ury After all, if the parent himself is no lon&er lia#le for
the studentGs acts #ecause he has reached ma3ority a&e and so is no lon&er under the formerGs
control, there is then all the more reason for leniency in assessin& the teacherGs responsi#ility for
the acts of the student
Applyin& the fore&oin& considerations, the Court has arrived at the followin& conclusionsJ
1 At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of
Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos notwithstandin& that the fourth year classes had formally ended (t
was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium to 'nish his physics e"periment or merely to
su#mit his physics report for what is important is that he was there for a le&itimate purpose As
previously o#served, even the mere savorin& of the company of his friends in the premises of the
school is a le&itimate purpose that would have also #rou&ht him in the custody of the school
authorities
2 The rector, the hi&h school principal and the dean of #oys cannot #e held lia#le #ecause none of
them was the teacher-in-char&e as previously de'ned ;ach of them was e"ercisin& only a &eneral
authority over the student #ody and not the direct control and in6uence e"erted #y the teacher
placed in char&e of particular classes or sections and thus immediately involved in its discipline
The evidence of the parties does not disclose who the teacher-in-char&e of the o4endin& student
was The mere fact that Alfredo Amadora had &one to school that day in connection with his
physics report did not necessarily ma2e the physics teacher, respondent Celestino 9icon, the
teacher-in-char&e of AlfredoGs 2iller
@ At any rate, assumin& that he was the teacher-in-char&e, there is no showin& that 9icon was
ne&li&ent in enforcin& discipline upon 9a4on or that he had waived o#servance of the rules and
re&ulations of the school or condoned their non-o#servance .is a#sence when the tra&edy
happened cannot #e considered a&ainst him #ecause he was not supposed or re$uired to report to
school on that day And while it is true that the o4endin& student was still in the custody of the
teacher-in-char&e even if the latter was physically a#sent when the tort was committed, it has not
#een esta#lished that it was caused #y his la"ness in enforcin& discipline upon the student En the
contrary, the private respondents have proved that they had e"ercised due dili&ence, throu&h the
enforcement of the school re&ulations, in maintainin& that discipline
H (n the a#sence of a teacher-in-char&e, it is pro#a#ly the dean of #oys who should #e held lia#le
especially in view of the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier con'scated an unlicensed &un from
one of the students and returned the same later to him without ta2in& disciplinary action or
reportin& the matter to hi&her authorities %hile this was clearly ne&li&ence on his part, for which
he deserves sanctions from the school, it does not necessarily lin2 him to the shootin& of Amador
as it has not #een shown that he con'scated and returned pistol was the &un that 2illed the
petitionersG son
A *inally, as previously o#served, the Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos cannot #e held directly lia#le
under the article #ecause only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made
responsi#le for the dama&e caused #y the student or apprentice 0either can it #e held to answer
for the tort committed #y any of the other private respondents for none of them has #een found to
have #een char&ed with the custody of the o4endin& student or has #een remiss in the dischar&e of
his duties in connection with such custody
(n sum, the Court 'nds under the facts as disclosed #y the record and in the li&ht of the principles
herein announced that none of the respondents is lia#le for the in3ury in6icted #y :a#lito 9amon on
Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the latterGs death at the auditorium of the Cole&io de /an Fose-
5ecoletos on April 1@, 1BD2 %hile we deeply sympathiKe with the petitioners over the loss of their
son under the tra&ic circumstances here related, we nevertheless are una#le to e"tend them the
material relief they see2, as a #alm to their &rief, under the law they have invo2ed
%.;5;*E5;, the petition is 9;0(;9, without any pronouncement as to costs (t is so ordered
CASE DI#EST)
Civil Law P Torts and 9ama&es P Article 2180 P Lia#ility of /chools of Arts and Trades and Academic
/chools P Lia#ility of Teachers and .eads of /chool
(n April 1BD2, while the hi&h school students of Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos were in the school
auditorium, a certain :a#lito 9a4on 'red a &un The stray #ullet hit Alfredo Amadora Alfredo died
9a4on was convicted of rec2less imprudence resultin& in homicide The parents of Alfredo sued the
school for dama&es under Article 2180 of the Civil Code #ecause of the school<s ne&li&ence
The trial court ruled in favor of Amadora The trial court ruled that the principal, the dean of #oys,
as well as the teacher-in-char&e are all civilly lia#le The school appealed as it averred that when
the incident happened, the school year has already ended Amadora ar&ued that even thou&h the
semester has already ended, his son was there in school to complete a school re$uirement in his
:hysics su#3ect The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the school The CA ruled that under the last
para&raph of Article 2180, only schools of arts and trades 7vocational schools8 are lia#le not
academic schools li2e Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos
(//=;J %hether or not Cole&io de /an Fose-5ecoletos, an academic school, is lia#le under Article
2180 of the Civil Code for the tortuous act of its students
.;L9J Qes The /upreme Court made a re-e"amination of the provision on the last para&raph of
Article 2180 which providesJ
Lastly, teachers or heads of esta#lishments of arts and trades shall #e lia#le for dama&es caused
#y their pupils and students or apprentices so lon& as they remain in their custody
The /upreme Court said that it is time to update the interpretation of the a#ove law due to the
chan&in& times where there is hardly a distinction #etween schools of arts and trade and academic
schools That #ein& said, the /upreme Court ruled that ALL schools, academic or not, may #e held
lia#le under the said provision of Article 2180
The /upreme Court however clari'ed that the school, whether academic or not, should not #e held
directly lia#le (ts lia#ility is only su#sidiary
*or non-academic schools, it would #e the principal or head of school who should #e directly lia#le
for the tortuous act of its students This is #ecause historically, in non-academic schools, the head
of school e"ercised a closer administration over their students than heads of academic schools (n
short, they are more hands on to their students
*or academic schools, it would #e the teacher-in-char&e who would #e directly lia#le for the
tortuous act of the students and not the dean or the head of school
The /upreme Court also ruled that such lia#ility does not cease when the school year ends or when
the semester ends Lia#ility applies whenever the student is in the custody of the school authorities
as lon& as he is under the control and in6uence of the school and within its premises, whether the
semester has not yet #e&un or has already ended at the time of the happenin& of the incident As
lon& as it can #e shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a le&itimate
student o#3ective, in the e"ercise of a le&itimate student ri&ht, and even in the en3oyment of a
le&itimate student ri&ht, and even in the en3oyment of a le&itimate student privile&e, the
responsi#ility of the school authorities over the student continues (ndeed, even if the student
should #e doin& nothin& more than rela"in& in the campus in the company of his classmates and
friends and en3oyin& the am#ience and atmosphere of the school, he is still within the custody and
su#3ect to the discipline of the school authorities under the provisions of Article 2180
At any rate, the 5;1;9Q of the teacher, to avoid direct lia#ility, and for the school, to avoid
su#sidiary lia#ility, is to show proof that he, the teacher, e"ercised the necessary precautions to
prevent the in3ury complained of, and the school e"ercised the dili&ence of a#onus pater familias
(n this case however, the :hysics teacher in char&e was not properly named, and there was no
suRcient evidence presented to ma2e the said teacher-in-char&e lia#le A#sent the direct lia#ility of
the teachers #ecause of the fore&oin& reason, the school cannot #e held su#sidiarily lia#le too