Bryan Anthony Zambo

Article 1162
Amadora v. CA [1988]

Facts:
Apr i l 13, 1972: Al f r edo Amador a, a hi gh school gr aduat i ng st udent of Col egi o de San Jose -
Re c o l e t o s we n t t o s c h o o l t o f i n i s h a Ph y s i c s e x p e r i me n t . Ho we v e r , wh i l e h e wa s
i n t h e audi t or i um, hi s cl assmat e Pabl i t o Daff on f i r ed a gun t hat hi t hi m. He di ed at 17. Daf f on
was convicted of homicide thru reckless imprudence.
Amador a s par ent s f i l ed a ci vi l act i on f or damages under CC Ar t . 2180 agai nst t he school , i t s
rector, HS principal, dean of boys & Physics teacher, plus Daffon & 2 other students thru their parents. Complaint
against students was later dropped.
CFI Cebu: def endant s wer e l i abl e i n t he sum of P294, 984. 00 ( deat h compensat i on, l oss
of earning capacity, costs of litigation, funeral expenses, moral damages, exemplary damages &
attorneys fees)
CA: reversed, all defendants absolved completely.
1. As per Rul es of Cour t ( ROC) Rul e 45, CC Ar t . 2180 i s not appl i cabl e si nce t he school was an
academic institution of learning & not a school of arts & trades.
2.Students were not in custody of the school at the time of the incident since the semester had already ended.
3 . No c l e a r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e f a t a l g u n .
4. Def endant s exer ci sed necessar y di l i gence i n pr event i ng i nj ur y.
Petitioners claim their son was still under schools custody because he went to school to comply w/a requirement for
graduation.
Respondents: Amadora went to school to submit a Physics report & he was no longer in their custody since the
semester was over.
A gun was confiscated by Sergio Damaso, dean of boys, from Jose Gumban on April 7,
1972. It was an unlicensed pistol w/c was later on returned to Gumban w/o reporting such t o t he pr i nci pal or
t aki ng f ur t her act i on. Gumban was one Daf f on s compani ons when the incident happened. Petitioners
claim it was this gun that killed their son w/c respondents rebutted by saying there was no proof that they were one
and the same.

Issue:
Whether or not respondents are liable under Article 1162 pursuant to article 2180.

Held:
Applying the foregoing considerations, the Court has arrived at the following conclusions:
1. At the time Alfredo Amadora was fatally shot, he was still in the custody of the authorities of Colegio de San Jose-
Recoletos notwithstanding that the fourth year classes had formally ended. It was immaterial if he was in the school
auditorium to finish his physics experiment or merely to submit his physics report for what is important is that he was
there for a legitimate purpose. As previously observed, even the mere savoring of the company of his friends in the
premises of the school is a legitimate purpose that would have also brought him in the custody of the school
authorities.
2. The rector, the high school principal and the dean of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was the
teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of them was exercising only a general authority over the student body
and not the direct control and influence exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular classes or sections and
thus immediately involved in its discipline.
3. At any rate, assuming that he was the teacher-in-charge, there is no showing that Dicon was negligent in enforcing
discipline upon Daffon or that he had waived observance of the rules and regulations of the school or condoned their
non-observance. His absence when the tragedy happened cannot be considered against him because he was not
supposed or required to report to school on that day.
4. In the absence of a teacher-in-charge, it is probably the dean of boys who should be held liable especially in view of
the unrefuted evidence that he had earlier confiscated an unlicensed gun from one of the students and returned the
same later to him without taking disciplinary action or reporting the matter to higher authorities. While this was clearly
negligence on his part, for which he deserves sanctions from the school, it does not necessarily link him to the
shooting of Amador as it has not been shown that he confiscated and returned pistol was the gun that killed the
petitioners' son.
5. Finally, as previously observed, the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held directly liable under the article
because only the teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is made responsible for the damage caused by
the student or apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer for the tort committed by any of the other private
respondents for none of them has been found to have been charged with the custody of the offending student or has
been remiss in the discharge of his duties in connection with such custody.
In sum, the Court finds under the facts as disclosed by the record and in the light of the principles herein announced
that none of the respondents is liable for the injury inflicted by Pablito Damon on Alfredo Amadora that resulted in the
latter's death at the auditorium of the Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos on April 13, 1972.