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. Alfredos 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 SCHOOLS CUSTODY. He was in school to show his physics experiment as a
graduation prerequisite.
RESPONDENTS: AMADORA NOT UNDER SCHOOLS 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 Daffons 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 schools
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 schools 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 i ts
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.
o 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 schools 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
o 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 formers 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
o No more masters, apprentices in schools of arts and trades
o Teachers are often no longer objects of veneration who are given due to substitute parents