You are on page 1of 2

Search

SPONSORED ADS
Home
About UD
Full Texts
Legal English
Law Student Blog
Forum
Quizzes and Exams
LAW MEMES
2013 BAR EXAM RESULTS
Home Civil Law Spouses Moises and Brigida Palisoc vs Antonio Brillantes
Spouses Moises and Brigida Palisoc vs Antonio Brillantes
41 SCRA 548 Civil Law Torts and Damages Liability of teachers/heads of establishments of arts and trades
In March 1966, while Dominador Palisoc (16 years old) was watching Virgilio Daffon and Desiderio Cruz work on a
machine in their laboratory class in the Manila Technical Institute (a school of arts and trades), Daffon scolded Palisoc for
just standing around like a foreman. This caused Palisoc to slightly slap the face of Daffon and a fistfight ensued between
the two. Daffon delivered blows that eventually killed Palisoc. The parents of Palisoc sued Daffon, the school president
(Teodosio Valenton), the instructor (Santiago Quibulue), and the owner (Antonio Brillantes). The basis of the suit against
Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes was Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
The lower court, as well as the CA, ruled that only Daffon is liable for damages and that Valenton, Quibulue, and Brillantes
are not liable because under Article 2180, they are only liable so long as they [the students] remain in their custody. And
that this means, as per Mercado vs Court of Appeals, that teachers or heads of establishments are only liable for the tortious
acts of their students if the students are living and boarding with the teacher or other officials of the school which Daffon
was not.
ISSUE: Whether or not the ruling in the Mercado Case still applies.
HELD: No. The SC abandoned the ruling in the Mercado Case as well as the ruling in the Exconde Case as they adopted
Justice JBL Reyes dissenting opinion in the latter case. Valenton and Quibulue as president and teacher-in-charge of the
school must be held jointly and severally liable for the quasi-delict of Daffon. The unfortunate death resulting from the fight
between the students could have been avoided, had said defendants but complied with their duty of providing adequate
supervision over the activities of the students in the school premises to protect their students from harm, whether at the
hands of fellow students or other parties. At any rate, the law holds them liable unless they relieve themselves of such
liability, in compliance with the last paragraph of Article 2180, Civil Code, by (proving) that they observed all the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage. In the light of the factual findings of the lower courts decision,
said defendants failed to prove such exemption from liability. The SC reiterated that there is nothing in the law which
prescribes that a student must be living and boarding with his teacher or in the school before heads and teachers of the
! VS De VS ! CA Case ! Family Law CA ! Case VS
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
school may be held liable for the tortious acts of their students.

Read full text here.
Read Chronology of Supreme Court Decisions Regarding Liability of Schools for the Tortious Act of their
Students/Employees
SPONSORED ADS
Related Cases/Legal Resources
Share on facebook On Facebook Brillantes Social networking site Desiderio
School of art Virgilio 2013 bar exam results Email Addresses Exam Result
PALISOC vs
BRILLANTES
Sabina Exconde vs
Delfin and Dante
Capuno
Leouel Santos vs
Court of Appeals &
Julia Rosario Bedia-
Santos
Maria Teresa
Cuadra vs Alfonso
Monfort
Jose Amadora vs
Court of Appeals
EXCONDE vs
CAPUNO
Elcano vs Hill
Facebook social plugin
Also post on Facebook
Posting as Allene Gonzales (Change) Comment
Add a comment...

You might also like